# What is causing massive bee deaths in the US?



## Boris

There are reports of massive deaths of bee colonies in the US. I think that there are at least two major problems in American beekeeping: 1) autumn and spring syrup feeding (instead of honey); 2) usage of chemicals as a bee management technique (prevention against mites, American foulbrood, and Nosema disease). In my opinion, both of these factors weaken the immune systems of bees. Therefore, when these new viruses or diseases arrive, the bees are not strong enough to combat
them.

Does anyone have any statistical data that confirms that all colonies that have died were fed with syrup and were chemically treated? Also, does anyone have any data regarding deaths among colonies that were not fed with syrup and were not chemically treated?

Also, for information about raising your own SMR/VSH bees, click here: http://www.beebehavior.com/bee_enemies.php

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> There are reports of massive deaths of bee colonies in the US

Yes, but the root causes have yet to be determined.

> I think that there are at least two major problems in American
> beekeeping: 1) autumn and spring syrup feeding (instead of honey); 

Well, honey has indigestible components ("ash") that cause all sorts
of problems for both overwintering and early spring bees, and these
problems (including dysentery) simply don't show up when nice clean
pure syrup is fed. So (1) is not a problem at all.

> 2) usage of chemicals as a bee management technique (prevention
> against mites, American foulbrood, and Nosema disease). In my opinion,
> both of these factors weaken the immune systems of bees. 

There is no consensus on this claim. The immune systems of bees
ARE weakened by the viruses that are transmitted by varroa, but 
there is no suggestion that any of the treatments you listed have
any effect at all on the immune systems of bees. More to the
point, these types of drugs/chemicals would be very unlikely to have
any impact on immune response.

> Does anyone have any statistical data that confirms that all colonies 
> that have died were fed with syrup and were chemically treated? 

No, in fact, there are colonies that were neither fed nor treated
with chemicals that showed exactly the same symptoms as all the
other "CCD" colonies.

> Also, does anyone have any data regarding deaths among colonies 
> that were not fed with syrup and were not chemically treated?

You are going to have to wait with the rest of us for the reports to
come out from the group looking at CCD for data like that, but your
approach of declaring a diagnosis, and then looking for data to
support it is just a bit bass-ackwards.

One looks at the data, and THEN makes conclusions as to the 
proximate cause and the contributing factors.


----------



## Boris

"There is no consensus on this claim."

Jim,

"According to Pennsylvania State University entomologist Diane Cox-Foster, another possibility is that neonicotinoids are another factor impairing bee immunity". More details are here:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1087

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

The problem with blaming neonicotinoids is that not all the hives that
have shown CCD symptoms were exposed to neonicotinoids, or could
have been exposed.

I wish that the problem were as "easy" as a simple pesticide problem.
It ain't, so it ain't.


----------



## Boris

Jim, please read this article also:

"The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene family of the honey bee, Apis mellifera" :http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1626644

Boris


----------



## BerkeyDavid

*Good story today on Science Friday NPR*

on CCD. THey had the President of the American Beeks, Weaver. He was very articulate and did a nice job.

Also a professor from U. of Illinois I think. I will try to find the link to the story.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Jim Fischer said:


> The problem with blaming neonicotinoids is that not all the hives that
> have shown CCD symptoms were exposed to neonicotinoids, or could
> have been exposed.


Hi Jim
I keep hearing that not all hives could be exposed to neonicotinoids, but then I read of the prevalence of these pesticides.....including golf courses, residential lawns, as well as a host of agricultural uses. 
I am wondering how they can be so sure they are NOT involved, especially when these colonies were often in multiple locations.
Sheri


----------



## BerkeyDavid

*Good Point Sheri*



JohnK and Sheri said:


> Hi Jim
> I keep hearing that not all hives could be exposed to neonicotinoids, but then I read of the prevalence of these pesticides.....including golf courses, residential lawns, as well as a host of agricultural uses.
> I am wondering how they can be so sure they are NOT involved, especially when these colonies were often in multiple locations.
> Sheri


Sheri

You would have enjoyed the comments of May Baranboim (see post in Bee forum on CCD on NPR) yesterday. 

She made a very interesting comment: We cannot rule out any pesticides or chemicals, even those that have been approved. WHile pesticides are tested for direct impacts on bees, they have not been tested for the impacts on bee communication or other social interaction. 

She went on to state how critical pheromones and so forth are to the hive's success, how thegenome study has shown us so much, and how interference with an aspect of the bee's ability to communicate could cause CCD.

Her thoughts were entirely consistent with my pet theory, which is that there are environmental pathogens that are interfereing with the ability of the bees to communicate via pheromones. Since we now know via the genome studies that the bees have highly developed olfactory abilities and no doubt use these to communicate the various duties, needs and jobs, something may be interfereing with this.


----------



## Jim Fischer

While we might all wish that the proximate cause were so simple, it ain't.

If the common factor were a pesticide, the folks doing the investigating wouldn't still be investigating, would they?

Yes, it would be nice to have a chemical company to blame, but the
symptoms just don't add up to anything similar to any know pesticide
issue, including the "Gaucho" symptoms seen in Europe.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

What are the differences between "CCD" and France's problem? 
Am I remembering correctly from reading about the problems France saw that these pesticides have been shown, in submortal doses, to impact the bee's navigational ability? Was this Gaucho, Jim? If I understand this correctly, when brought to light in France, Bayer chose to settle the claims and withdraw from that market. Why, if there was no potential problem, didn't they go to court and defend their product? 

I realize these substances have been on the market for a while but would this, in and of itself rule them out? Many substances can be tolerated at small doses with increasingly severe impact showing at increased dosages. Has the task group had a chance to do the parts per million tests on the bees that disappeared?
The implications of being impacted by any substance or condition is not necessarily a "simple" thing. There might be several factors involved, including poor nutrition, genetics, past or concurrent treatments for mites, etc etc etc. of which any two or three might be tolerated and the addition of the third being the final straw.
The last I heard is that these substances had not been ruled out as a _factor_. Is this not the case?
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee

I expect many will be saddened if and when no clear boogieman surfaces. No pesticide company to blame, no conspiracy of GM crops, no links to Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/oil (although I suppose some will always claim it), no new virus for someone to name, no reason that would be as simple as developing a new strip to shove in a box and make it just all go away.

Imagine a combination of things, to include beekeeping practices, industry ignorance, and many factors coming into play, all somehow promoted and multiplied by beekeepers themselves. Bet that would be a hard pill for some to swallow.


----------



## Kieck

Have any of the researchers tried infecting colonies that have not been infected? Do we even know yet whether or not this is a contagious disease?

Seems to me that if -- at the cost of sacrificing some colonies -- researchers could demonstrate whether or not this is a contagious disease, we would narrow the possibilities of the cause.


----------



## soupcan

*Infection*

So how do you infect another colony if you have no idea as to what is causing this infection????


----------



## Boris

soupcan said:


> So how do you infect another colony if you have no idea as to what is causing this infection????


This is a very good question.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Simple. Take bees from colonies that have collapsed from CCD (of course, you have to catch them at the point when a few bees are still left), and introduce them to isolated colonies that have shown no signs of CCD.

If the colonies "get" CCD and collapse, the disease may be contagious, and is likely caused by an infectious agent.

If the colonies do not "get" CCD, the disease is likely cause by some other factor(s).


----------



## Aspera

Bayer has what can kindly be described as a checkered record on the environmental health and safety of their products. This was recently demonstrated by their insistance that Baytril use in chickens was not causing fluroquinilone (antibiotic) resistance above and beyond that created by poor hospital procedures. Bayer ultimately withdrew the poultry label, but not before having several public screaming matches with CDC officials and concerned infectious disease specialists. They make good products, but need to rethink the labelling they do.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

BjornBee said:


> I expect many will be saddened if and when no clear boogieman surfaces.


American agriculture may certainly be saddened. If this goes away as some other (the same?) unidentified occurances in the past have, it won't matter long term except to those who are bankrupt. If this continues to be a big problem or accelerates, with no clue as to cause, many commercial operations just won't bother with repeated rebuilds. 



BjornBee said:


> No pesticide company to blame, no conspiracy of GM crops, no links to Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/oil (although I suppose some will always claim it), no new virus for someone to name, no reason that would be as simple as developing a new strip to shove in a box and make it just all go away.


I don't get this post, Bjorn, could you clarify your point a bit? Are you suggesting that the researchers shouldn't be looking at the possibilities of pesticides having an (even indirect?) impact? They shouldn't look at what, if any, viruses might be involved? You seem to negate any problems with chemicals, then condemn the beeks for wanting a chemical strip in their hives? And what does Bush/Cheney/Haliburton have to do with any of it? Are you suggesting the *researchers* are conspiracy theorists? 



BjornBee said:


> Imagine a combination of things, to include beekeeping practices, industry ignorance, and many factors coming into play, all somehow promoted and multiplied by beekeepers themselves. Bet that would be a hard pill for some to swallow.


As I see it, we need to determine the sickness before we try to force down any pills, bitter or not. To throw up one's hands, blame the victims, and discourage an openminded investigation only promotes the previously mentioned "industry ignorance". A bitter pill is better than not trying to cure the patient at all.
If CCD has any positive impact at all, it might be the extra scrutiny given to all dimensions of our beekeeping, including beekeeper practices and outside environmental impacts. How does one get past ignorance without ever asking questions?
Sheri


----------



## Boris

Kieck said:


> Simple. Take bees from colonies that have collapsed from CCD (of course, you have to catch them at the point when a few bees are still left), and introduce them to isolated colonies that have shown no signs of CCD.
> 
> If the colonies "get" CCD and collapse, the disease may be contagious, and is likely caused by an infectious agent.
> 
> If the colonies do not "get" CCD, the disease is likely cause by some other factor(s).


Kieck,

Your approach is possible, but there is a probability that the new result will not be entirely correct due to bacterial mutations and virus evolution. Please see the two links included below.

Bacterial Mutations: http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Bacterial_Mutations.html

"Vesicular Stomatitis Virus Evolution during Alternation between Persistent Infection in Insect Cells and Acute Infection in Mammalian Cells Is Dominated by the Persistence Phase": http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=525086

Boris


----------



## Ian

Is there any constants between sick colonies in different operations?
Seeing enough of it now, you would think there could be some corresponding conditions and issues,.?

reading the article Silverfox posted,
they were mentioning it being primarily found in pollination hives.
And also mentioned that symptoms of CCD has been documented as far back as into the 1800's, and again in 1960. They referred it to "disappearing disease"
Now I think about it, my bee bible has mention of disappearing disease.

If these references hold to their claims, this problem might be associated to something far removed from modern day agriculture as many like to speculate.


----------



## BjornBee

Sheri, My comments are clear enough. Just try not to read into them too deeply.

A couple examples just to compare industries....

I was talking to one of the farmers I pollinate for, and ask "Who's that guy driving through the orchard?" He replied "Thats my pesticide consultant' I said "Whats he do?" And the reply in short was, "He advises me to the timing of spray, the right mixture, what I can save by not spraying, etc." I said that there must be alot that goes into growing apple.

I can also pick up a newspaper called the "lancaster farming". It details milk analysis, fat content, and other items from the past weeks milk production farms. I talked to several farmers about milk herds, and it was amazing how detailed milk herds are with scheduling, nutrition feeding, and such. Its down to a science in more ways than one.

I know even the cutting of alfalfa is based on timing, with nutrition and formulas to maximize number of cuts, etc. 

All I'm saying Sherri, is that beekeeping as an industry is far behind in nutrition analysis, research, and anything else you could mention. Most farming today has credited classes, continuing education, and have researched whats best for their particular industry down to a science. I think the Australian are way ahead on nutrition, the Canadians are way ahead with breeding efforts as two examples.

I see a bee industry in the U.S. that is 20 years in research behind other countries when it comes to keeping bees. We are fragmented at every level of the industry, including research, breeding efforts, and anything even remotely close to calling something a standard.

I am not for goverment control or intervention, so don't get me wrong. But there are many within the industry that see major problems with industry practices, chemical abuse, etc.

I have spoken to three clubs recently about nutrition, bee protein, and other items. Some of what I speak is from 20 year old studies. But yet even the commercial guys are lost when I ask them what the nutritional value of the suppliment they are feeding. And lets not fool anyone, I have seen more chemicals, and many off-label also, in commercial hives than most would believe.

If they find a single cause, hopefully it can be easily fixed. I think its a multi-level problem that may actually get american beekeeping on a better path. I don't see it as a single new virus, or some new chemical. I see it as an industry problem. A problem that has been brewing for years. I do see beekeeping as an industry. Just not one that is very healthy right now. And if its not a one time easily fixed problem, maybe the industry, through change, can be better for it in the future.


----------



## mike haney

*Ccd*

the more i am around bees, the less i know about them. this quote fits me perfectly. you folks are making my head swim.HEY- maybe i've caught CCD!!! JUST KIDDING!! very interesting thread but i'm gonna quit saying i'm a beekeeper and just say i keep bees.


----------



## George Fergusson

Kieck said:


> Simple. Take bees from colonies that have collapsed from CCD (of course, you have to catch them at the point when a few bees are still left), and introduce them to isolated colonies that have shown no signs of CCD.


I believe they've done that. What I think they did was put seemingly healthy bees in equipment from CCD deadouts and in many cases the hives collapsed. I believe they also combined seemingly healthy hives with some of the "remnant" bees from CCD collapsed colonies and those combines, in most cases, died.

I'm recalling this from memory from reading Jerry Bromenshenk's posts on Bee-L. I could be mistaken in the details.

So it would appear that CCD is contagious. Perhaps, given that colonies that succumbed to CCD don't initially get robbed or attacked by wax moth and SHB, perhaps, there is something lingering in the equipment.

<edit> Well I searched my mailbox and came up with a few quotes from Jerry Bromenshenk. It appears my memory wasn't too far off. Forgive me Jerry for quoting you out of context!



> It looks to be contagious, and the total absence of robbing, invasion by
> hive beetles, wax moth is peculiar.





> ..in several CCD cases that we've examined, when beekeepers combined or stacked good bees on CCD boxes/frames -- all of the bees collapsed. In a few cases, or if the boxes have been open to the air for several weeks, the bees appeared to be ok.


----------



## BjornBee

Almost all samples collected of dead and dying CCD hives have enormous levels of multiple deseases. With never seen high levels of EFB being one of them. The toxins produced from this concoction of multiple viral/bacterial vectors could be the reason that frames or bees introduced into a CCD hives continues to die off. This is far from suggesting that CCD is contagious from one hive to another. At this point, the noted lack of robbing suggests that CCD is not contagious, since bees do not rob out honey until after the frames and hives have been aired out and thus the toxin levels decreased. And thus far, after the frames have been aired out, no noted transfer of CCD has been mentioned, even after acknowledging that bees will in fact rob out a hive at a later time, perhaps when the danger level of toxins has passed.

Since when is adding healthy bees to a deadly deseased hive, proof of contagiousness or not?


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

>>>Just try not to read into (my comments) too deeply.<<<
Sheesh, Bjorn, I thought you_ wanted _your comments taken seriously! 

I agree with most of your last post, maybe eek: ) even all of it. While I think the jury's still out on CCD causes, I agree beekeeping science in this country is in a sorry state. 
Almost all the beekeepers I know, many 3rd generation, are doing things mostly the way their grandparents did, except on a larger scale and with forklifts, that includes us. Not for any particular reason but that it was the way it's always been done and it has worked so far. Lots has changed in agriculture in the past few decades but not much in beekeeping. Most changes in commercial beekeeping have been merely chemical bandaids trying to ward off problems for which no other realistic option is available. Maybe a classic 'treat the symptom, not the cause' mentality, but born of the age old syndrome of wanting a roof over one's head, to keep the lights on and to eat at least one meal a day. 
The problem, I think, has been that until recently, beekeeping wasn't considered important enough to fund much research when "it has worked so far". That can't be said any more, at least not with a straight face. It's interesting and telling that the almond board is more interested in funding research than many beekeepers. On the other hand, they can probably afford it easier than most beekeepers, with skyrocketing costs and skydiving honey prices. Nor can most commercial beekeepers afford to bet the farm on unproven pest controls, or do indepth studies into nutritional compositions. This is what the research facilities, the universities should be doing. 

You have obviously given this much thought. Where do we as an industry go now? How do we play catch up?
Sheri


----------



## nursebee

Maybe the whole CCD thing is just the AHB trait of absconding.


----------



## George Fergusson

>Since when is adding healthy bees to a deadly deseased hive, proof of contagiousness or not?

Contagious: Transmissible by direct or indirect contact; communicable: a contagious disease.

Of course, you've been talking in terms of toxins. Contagiousness isn't really applicable to toxins- it's either poisonous or it isn't and the bees are either in contact with it and die, or they aren't and they live. On the other hand, if the problem is a disease or virus and healthy bees catch it when brought into close proximity then it's contagious, no?


----------



## BjornBee

Not really sure Sheri.

I do remember, was it last year, that the national honey board made the suggestion that if the U.S. bee industry does not get its act together, than the money they normally give to bee research would go directly towards efforts to open the border to allow bees from the south. They will spend the money that directly benefits them. 

Its really hard to make changes or redirect efforts until, unfortunately, a major crisis developes. This may be that crisis. I look forward to a time when researchers are not "grant *****s" as they say. (I don't blame them, as they are dependant on this money to just continue every year.) A time when researchers are not debating how much a screen bottom helps or does not help, or does not help significantly, or some other definition.

I guess listing some items (breeder group, focused research here or there, etc.) could be done for points of discussion, but I think that it goes deeper than mere lists of one thing or another. I think its a mindset change, a cultural change, and no money or list will change that. 

Unfortunately for us, we are a big country. One with many points and angles. I guess its easier for a smaller country to make strides where we just get bogged down in personal politics, positioning for power, dividing money too many ways for unnecassary research, and so on. I don't see many changes coming until either forced too, or a major crisis developes. One that may hurt alot of beekeepers. I don't relish in that fact, but will embrace any good that may come out it.


----------



## BerkeyDavid

*Bjorn you cannot equate the level of study of animals*

with that of insects. The study of entomology is way behind the study of animals. THe primary goal of entomologists until recently has simply been to classify and identify.

On the other hand man has been breeding and studying animals for millenia.

So it should come as no surprise that we know so little about insects.

The exciting thing to me is that we have the bee genome now coded so this will lead us to start to understand things that are far different than those that govern animal behaviour.

It is a lot easier to think like a chicken or a goat or a cow than like a bee. We can't even imagine what governs insect behaviour.

To me the critical thing is that the bees have absconded. There are no dead bodies.

So I believe something is or has interfered with their ability to communicate. Or there is something in the hive that has caused some / most of them to depart without the queen.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

nursebee said:


> Maybe the whole CCD thing is just the AHB trait of absconding.


Nursebee, interesting you should bring this up. D.Murrell posted on the biobeek'ing thread that the 1976 "disappearing disease" was blamed on AHB genes by researchers at that time.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=216169&postcount=12
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee

Yeah George, whatever. My hive ten miles from your with a bad case of AFB would not be contagious to your hive. But I guess if I came over and jammed a few frames inside yours, the meaning would change. I know the text book definition, but I was more along the lines of practical application. 

Lets look at it this way. If not for the fact that some researcher placed frames from one hive into another, no proof up to this point has been shown that CCD is contagious between hives.

Guess cancer is classified contagious, since if you donate a lung or some other organ riddled with cancer to another person via a transplant, the second person would have cancer. But I know cancer is not contagious.


----------



## BjornBee

David, I dissagree totally. My examples of apples and cows illustrates this.

How hard is it to have a nationally recognized breeders association to further breeding efforts such as the ontario group (for 15 years now). How hard is it to catalog the research on pollen as the Austalians did (20 years ago). These are just two areas that the U.S. bee industry is far behind other countries. 

I earlier pointed out some information 20 years old from australia concerning protein in relationship to a body mass. You would of thought nobody had ever came across this information before. In three club meetings and discussions with two researchers, nobody had a clue. Guess they were waiting for that bee genome data to enlighten them on these other issues. 

Your telling me that the science in growing apples is detailed down to weather conditions, temperature, point of blossom developement, and other factors, and yet you give a pass on the U.S. bee industry on lack of knowledge on nutrition, stress, and other important areas, because up till now the "bee genome" was not completed. I find that totally amazing, but explains the lack of expectations and perhaps the "culture" I mentioned earlier.


----------



## George Fergusson

BjornBee said:


> Yeah George, whatever.


Well I understand what you're saying Bjorn, and I guess you understand me. I agree, there's a big difference between communicable, contagious, and highly contagious. Depending on modes of transmission, contagiousness can vary considerably.

I happen to think you're take on CCD is about the most plausible explanation I've heard so far. That said, I'm still waiting for a consensus from the CCD working group- until then I'm going to keep an open mind.

I'm also very interested in how CCD is playing out. It appears that a lot of the beekeepers who've experienced CCD in their operations have not been inclined to share that information publicly. Jerry Bromenshenk just posted this to Bee-L:



> New losses occur every day - one of the nation's large and most respected beekeepers lost most of his operation two weeks ago, another joined the ranks last Wednesday.


The real scope of CCD in this country is unknown to most of us. That is unsettling.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

>>>I do remember, was it last year, that the national honey board made the suggestion that if the U.S. bee industry does not get its act together, than the money they normally give to bee research would go directly towards efforts to open the border to allow bees from the south. They will spend the money that directly benefits them.<<<
I must have missed this statement but it doesn't surprise me. 
Did they further define what would entail "getting 'our' act together?" 
I can imagine....
The NHB is funded directly by enforced assessments from honey producers. How ironic if they took our "donations" and used them to open the borders further. 
But perhaps I am being too harsh. The NHB has done it's mandated job of promoting honey; China, Argentina and Vietnam are most grateful.
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee

George, 
I made a passing comment to someone about the adee operation at the same time someone posted here on beesource that adee's claimed no losses. And this person basically said, "How did you know about addee's?, I didn't know that information was out yet." So obviously to me, there are some stories not being told.


----------



## BjornBee

Sheri, I think the qoute was made by a blue diamond rep, at a national honey board meeting. So maybe my first comment was off. The almond industry does give alot to bee research, etc.


----------



## BjornBee

I wanted to make two examples to clear my comments about apples, cows, bees, etc.

I know if I approached any of my apple growers, and flashed a glossy "apple mag", and stated "Hey, do I have a deal for you. I'm selling fertilizer at half price!" The response might be something along the lines of, "OK, whats the ingredients and nutrient levels?" I could respond further stating "Hey, it does not matter, look at the price!"

My point is, that an apple grower knows exactly what his trees need. They have soil analyzed, spray consultants, know the compounds in the fertilizers they need, and so on.

Now contrast that to a beekeeper.

"Hey, look at this glossy bee mag, I have bee substitute on sale cheap!"

Beekeeper responds.."I'll take some!"

Look at some of the bee mags. One advertises "Generic pollen", one advertises the percieved quality of a substitute with "pollen added" that has a lower nutritional value than the original formula prior to adding the pollen. Whats that say about the pollen? Most mags do not qoute or show nutrition value. But do we demand to see them, or do we just buy it? Do I think any of my apple growers buy their fertilizer based on price, and absent of any nutritional values printed for consideration prior to buying? No way! They now what they need, what the levels are, and whats it takes to have a good operation.

I recently started a thread entitled "what is pollen?" It was focused on this very point. DeGroot detailed in 1953 the nutritional values needed for healthy bees. But yet, almost every beekeeper I have talked too knows nothing about it. They never even heard of isoleucine. I equate that to an apple grower not knowing what nitrogen is.

I know some of the big growers use containers of pollen shipped in from overseas. Kind of hard to find out what the nutrition value is though when you ask. But you hear "Hey, but its real pollen!".

Does any of this make sense? I see the apple grower making much more informed decisions and having the needed information obtained through research, far exceeding anything the average beekeeper has at their disposal. But I guess as long as those "glossy mags" with cheap prices sell, nothing will change......

We as an industry must make the changes. We must demand better from suppliers. We must pull ourselves up with our own bootstraps. We must educate ourselves to at least the same level as an apple grower, if thats not asking too much.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

>>>maybe my first comment was off.<<<
_Now_ you tell me, lol. Sure glad I toned down my response once I stopped seeing red.
Sheri


----------



## BjornBee

I'm always good for something. What...I have no clue!


----------



## Boris

"Most changes in commercial beekeeping have been merely chemical bandaids trying to ward off problems ..."

Sheri, 
Bravo! I agree with your statement.

Boris


----------



## BerkeyDavid

BjornBee said:


> Your telling me that the science in growing apples is detailed down to weather conditions, temperature, point of blossom developement, and other factors, and yet you give a pass on the U.S. bee industry on lack of knowledge on nutrition, stress, and other important areas, because up till now the "bee genome" was not completed. I find that totally amazing, but explains the lack of expectations and perhaps the "culture" I mentioned earlier.


Bjorn:
First of all, you are the one who came up with the apples and cows, not me.
Nor did I ever "give a pass" to the US Bee industry.

Here is my point, with some quotes from the 1986 Encycl. Brittanica. (I am sure you can find different quotes but that is what I am using because 1. I have it at my fingertips, and 2. it proves my point about the state of entomology - at least in 1986.)

First point: The study of entomology is in its infancy, compared to animal and plant husbandry.

Proof: "The largest single class of animals, the Insecta, is composed of 700,000 known species; probably at least another 700,000 are not yet known to science."

Second point: Most of the study of entomology is still involved with simply identification.
Proof: "Much of modern entomology is still in the descriptive stage of taxonomy; and even in well-studied groups such as the butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) new species are continually being discovered. It is often exceedingly difficult to identify life stages other than the adult in insect groups that exhibit complete metamorphosis."

Third point: Most of the study that we (mankind) have made of insects has been on how to kill them!
Proof: "The biology of an important pest insect is usually much more fully known that that of its benign or obscure relatives. Governmental departments of agriculture and the chemical industry, through university and field stations, spend enormous sums of money on the biology of pest insects with the aim of determining the best means of control."

OK, so there you have it. 

Just imagine if there were 700,000 known species of mammals, and all but 100 of them were perceived to be pests?

Or 700,000 species of fruits and vegetables known, and 700,000 unknown? Do you think the same level of study would be going on as currently?

Bjorn I do not disagree with your point that more resources ought to be devoted to the honey bee. But in our capitalistic society if research doesn't show promise to make money then it is unlikely to attract funding.

And even though I am opposed to drugs and chemicals for bees, frankly the total market for a silver bullet solution to CCD wouldn't generate squat in terms of profits.

I'm not making excuses, just trying to understand the history of how we got to where we are. "Before we can tell where we are going we first have to find out where we are and how we got here."


----------



## Boris

The current problem can be divided into two levels: 1) The immune systems of many bee colonies are weakened; 2) A virus, a disease or another unknown problem is affecting colonies with weakened systems.

I think that our discussion about the second level of the current massive dying is not productive. Sooner or later, bee scientists will find the problem. Not all scientists are reading bee forum posts and that means that we cannot influence their jobs. But, we really can help them as practicing beekeepers by looking at the first level of the current problem. 

There are many studies that show differences in the immune systems of wild animals (and birds) and domesticated animals (and birds), because wild animals feed on natural food. Also, there are many studies that show that children who are breast-fed have stronger immune systems and are healthier than children who were fed with formula milk.

Everyone can easily repeat my experiment. In the fall, feed two colonies with syrup and another two colonies with honey and pollen. Scientists from universities can use a wider sample (perhaps 10 colonies to be fed with sugar syrup, 10 colonies with corn syrup and 10 colonies to be fed with honey and pollen). In the spring, during the first colony inspection, compare the number of dead bees in each of the observed colonies. You will see that colonies that were fed with honey and pollen will have at least 15-20% less dead bees than the colonies that were fed with syrup.

This information may be very useful to the bee scientists, and therefore, will be a practical way in which we, as forum members, can assist these scientists in a real, significant way.


Boris


----------



## BjornBee

David,
Why are we bogged down comparing one field to another? I used the bees/cows/apples as am example, and further clarified my point with a followup post.

I don't care how many species have been discovered or not in this discussion. Why is that even a point for discussion?

Forget apples, forget how long somethings been discovered or not , and lets just talk bees then....

Answer this. Someone, anyone, explain the data, the scientific formula, the "first substitute engineered to be as close to pollen as possible", in regards to "Bee-Feed". What standard are we talking about? DeGroot standardized bee nutrition standards almost 50 years ago. I have seen no other standard (unless you call some marketing fluff "as close to pollen as possible" a standard) that goes against what DeGroot published in 1953. And yet, the latest breakthrough in bee feed, does not come close to the minimum standards called for. But does anyone question this prior to buying this stuff by the pallet? Does the average beekeeper, let alone a profession commercial operator, even have the knowledge or understanding of whats in their feed program?

I equated a beekeeper not knowing standards for feed along the lines of an apple grower not knowing what nitrogen is. I'll not get into apples again, but use this as a comparision. It seems even basic discussion on industry ignorance gets bogged down for reasons of bee genome timing, or comparing our industry to others as to how long something has been researched. As if 53 years was not long enough for the bee industry to embrace standards set by DeGroot in 1953!

Pick up the latest copy of Bee Culture. Yet another debate, or at least opposing views on the effectiveness on SBB. One say "not significant", one says it helps. I have commented on research money in the past, as that spent by Cornell, in "researching" SBB. Very dissappointing that money is spent on such items. If money and tight budgets were not an issue, then compare all day long. But with a small industry and limited money at hand, I feel we are getting very little "bang" for the buck.

Yet, areas such as pollen identification, nutrition, queen programs such as the Ontario groups efforts, and many other much needed research goes unanswered every year. I have commented on t-mites for years. When was the last study ever completed on any efforts in regards to t-mites. (The ontario group all but has t-mites eliminated) In the U.S., we don't even know the impact of t-mites within the industry. And I feel its bigger than most think!

We got here by being fragmented, with no true voice, with beekeepers all expecting someone else to do the job, the research undefunded, and many other reasons. But when something is 53 years old, and the average beekeeper is ignorant of something as basic as bee nutritiion, whats going to change? Good questions you ask, but I don't have the answers.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> in regards to "Bee-Feed". What standard are we talking about? 
> DeGroot standardized bee nutrition standards almost 50 years ago. 

Exactly, and neither Dadant or Mann Lake have bothered to put as
much of a dime of their own money into R&D on high-margin products.
The DeGroot work is exactly what they base their products upon.

The "new" USDA liquid bee diet ("Megabee") is based upon current
(and ongoing) work.

> Does the average beekeeper, let alone a profession commercial operator,
> even have the knowledge or understanding of whats in their feed 
> program?

Pollen varies from plant to plant, so it is a moving target depending
upon plant mix, month of year and so on.

> As if 53 years was not long enough for the bee industry to embrace 
> standards set by DeGroot in 1953!

I'm not sure that anyone would claim that DeGroot was correct,
as his analysis was limited by the tools he had back in the 1950s.

> Pick up the latest copy of Bee Culture. Yet another debate, or at least
> opposing views on the effectiveness on SBB. 

That's *NOT *what was said - what was said was that Cornell still finds
SBBs to be less useful in their (Northern) area than studies have found
in more Southern locations.

> I have commented on t-mites for years. When was the last study ever
> completed on any efforts in regards to t-mites. (The ontario group all 
> but has t-mites eliminated) In the U.S., we don't even know the impact
> of t-mites within the industry. 

I don't know where you've been, but t-mite resistant stock has been
around for a while available from most breeders, and if beekeepers are 
still paying good money for queens that are anything less, that's their 
own fault. It is easy enough to check for T-mites, and easier still to 
ask before one buys queens. (Of course, those raising their own queens, 
or using mongrel stock that they want to imagine as "survivors" of
something or other have a tougher road ahead, as they have no clue 
how to breed for a specific trait.)


----------



## BjornBee

Jim, I agree as a whole on your comments.

My rant was from an industry standpoint as a whole. Yes, DeGroot's standard may be "off" as we have the ability to further his work today with better advancements. So this brings us to today...whats been the changes to his standard for the last 53 years? I see no other standard, and my point was, even if there was, whats one more standard when the last one has been ignored for the most part for 53 years? So the isoleucine level may be off by some fraction as qouted by DeGroot, that does not change the fact that most beekeepers, including commercial guys, know very little about something as basic as this, and published for 53 years. Can you imagine an apple grower saying "Whats nitrogen?". But a beekeeper will say "Huh?" when basic questions of nutrition are asked.

As for T-mites, I know there are some good breeders out there. I see little in the way of marketing or advertising in print, for all to see, from queen producers. Yeah, I suppose its one thing to say they are doing this, doing that, or make claims when its a one-on-one conversation with some beekeeper on the phone. But where's the claims in writing? Where's the advertisements, putting their product on the line?

My t-mite comment had to do with concentrated efforts by the ontario breeders grouop to completely eliminate t-mites from the breeding pool. I think they see beyond the individual breeder, and see things as whats best for the industry as a whole. We have no such efforts. This was one such example how the U.S. bee industry lacks effort in real programs towards making the industry better.

I never did say exactly what one person was saying or not saying in regards to SBB. I said they have opposing views, one suggesting they help and one saying they do not contribute "significantly" to control. Then they throw the little "at least in my area" stuff. My point again was along the lines that this is where discussions are today, where research efforts are placed, and where as I feel, we get little bang for the buck. Of course this conversations just illustrates how bogged down we get over semantics. Its a wonder anything ever gets done.

What exactly does "Screen bottom boards do not contribute to significant Varroa control, at least in the North" even mean? Whats significant? Do they help some? Help alot, but less than some definition of "significant"? What are we talking about 5%, 15%, 30% reduction? How sad that this is the level of quality research and data we recieve.

I personally don't care if SBB only contribute less than some level of "significant", say something like 10%. I'll take that 10% anyday, regardless of some researcher using vague terms and data to suggest that they would only be usefull if some level of "significant" was achieved. Sorry if I expect more than this from the industry.


----------



## Ian

Bjornbee, 

I agree! 

First time in a long time I actually enjoyed reading a rant.


----------



## Ian

>>feed two colonies with syrup and another two colonies with honey and pollen

What your point?

Are you drawing a line between syrup, and CCD? 

What syrup are you actually speaking of?


----------



## Aspera

With regard to nutrition, most domesticated animals in the U.S. have there nutrition requirements defined and revised every 15 years or so by the national research council (NRC). Honeybees are generally not considered economically important enough to have this done. Lets face it, 1/2 of all the colonies in the world could die and most governments wouldn't even bat an eye. We have so much money going to Iraq, there aren't even grants available for human nutrition research. Right now I think that most CCD research money is coming from state budgets, not the feds.


----------



## Boris

Ian,

My point is that autumn and spring Sugar or High Fructose Corn Syrup feeding (instead of honey) weakens the immune systems of bees. 

Boris


----------



## RSUCHAN

*HFC & sugar as feed*

Please explain to us as to how these two products weaken the bee's immune system???????


----------



## carbide

RSUCHAN said:


> Please explain to us as to how these two products weaken the bee's immune system???????


I'd like to see this too. Where was the study done to prove this? Was it performed in multiple locations of the country? Since honey and pollen have different properties in different locations of the country (actually from different nectar sources also) wouldn't it be necessary to compare results from varying honey and pollen. If you only did this comparison in one area with limited pollen and nectar sources how could you be sure that the results would hold up for all areas of the country?

Finman has stated for years that he extracts all honey from his bee hives brood boxes in the late summer and then feeds his hives enough sugar syrup to sustain them through his long winters. He claims that allowing the bees to survive through the winter with their own honey is unnecessary and a waste of good honey.


----------



## RSUCHAN

*Sugar & HFC*

Very good Carbide!!!!!! 
Try to winter bees on a fall flow of aster or sunflower honey & see what happens. This is exactly what I want to see!!!!! 
WHO DID THIS STUDy THAT LED TO THIS IMFORMATION??? 
The last thing we need as beekeepers is a bunch of rumors & B/S started. It helps no one!!! 
If you can not print the facts leave your fingers off the key board!!!


----------



## Boris

"If you only did this comparison in one area with limited pollen and nectar sources how could you be sure that the results would hold up for all areas of the country?" 

Carbide,
I completely agree with your statement. My experiments with bees are limited: there is only one fund - my pocket. Therefore, I had written previously that:"Scientists from universities (!!!) can use a wider sample (perhaps 10 colonies to be fed with sugar syrup, 10 colonies with corn syrup and 10 colonies to be fed with honey and pollen). In the spring, during the first colony inspection, compare the number of dead bees in each of the observed colonies. You will see that colonies that were fed with honey and pollen will have at least 15-20% less dead bees than the colonies that were fed with syrup."

And of course, as you pointed out, we would have to obtain results of my experiments from different locations.

I think that I have to create a new webpage with a full explanation of my personal bee studies.

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I think that I have to create a new webpage with a full 
> explanation of my personal bee studies.

This thread was started with the claim that feeding choices 
somehow had something to do with CCD. 

This claim is not just completely without merit, it is an "FAQ" item 
in the MAAREC document set. (Quoting)

"*What has been eliminated as a potential cause of CCD?* 

....*Feeding:* The practice of feeding was common to most of the
beekeepers interviewed and surveyed who experienced CCD. Some 
feed HFCS, others sucrose however, some did not feed. Most 
beekeepers interviewed did not feed protein but some used pre-made
protein supplement."

As far as feeding choices somehow having an impact on the
immune system of bees, its going to take quite a bit of
evidence to support this extraordinary claim, given that the 
studies done to date have either:

a) Shown no difference between HFCS and sugar syrup

b) Given sugar syrup a slight advantage

...but regardless, have consistently shown either to be tangibly 
superior to honey for overwintering.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Thanks for the link Jim, good info there.
Sheri


----------



## Ian

>>fed with honey and pollen will have at least 15-20% less dead bees than the colonies that were fed with syrup."
>>My point is that autumn and spring Sugar or High Fructose Corn Syrup feeding (instead of honey) weakens the immune systems of bees

Boris,

Your drawing a conclusion that feeding HFCS weakens the immune system of bees, from a small hive wintering studdy between surip and honey. 
Wintering bees is more complex than just the feed that is provided for the hives. 
Can you provide us with the studdy that has lead you to your conclusions?

There is a difference in sugars fed to hives. HFCS most commonly used here in Western Canada. Sucrose(white sugar), probably the next most common feed. There has been a studdy compairing HFCS and Sucrose, HFCS showing a slight 10% greater bee mortality.
But in an actual wintering situation, I would argue that 10% gets lost very quickly. Wintering bees is much more complex than simply giving them a certain kind of feed.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

Boris, I agree with Ian. I suggest your study wasn't large enough to _prove _anything. Even with 30 colonies fed exactly the same there would be differences in mortality rates over winter. 
Sheri


----------



## Boris

Jim, 

1. Did you read this info carefully?
- "According to Pennsylvania State University entomologist Diane Cox-Foster, another possibility is that neonicotinoids are another factor impairing bee immunity". More details are here:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1087
- "The nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene family of the honey bee, Apis mellifera" :http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1626644
2. Do you use any chemicals? If so, what kind, what quantity, and with what purpose? 
3. Do you use any kind of syrup for autumn and spring feeding?

Boris


----------



## Boris

Ian and Sherri,

Of course it is clear that other factors impact wintering bees. However, during this experiment, I maintained bees in identical conditions in order to observe only the effect of feeding.


----------



## RSUCHAN

*Hfc*

More than likely the question as to what you feed as far a sugar or HFC in the fall is to pin point as to what type of HFC plant your fall feed came from. There are wet mill, dry mill & several others processes used to produce HFC & alcohol I am told. 
This will become a very important part of this puzzle I am sure if bee feed is a suspect in CCD.


----------



## Kieck

"Wet mill" and "dry mill" are different processes to produce ethanol, as I understand it, but almost all -- if not all -- HFCS is produced through an enzymatic reaction.


----------



## Boris

RSUCHAN and Jim

You do not have even a chance to deny my previous statement:
"There are many studies that show differences in the immune systems of wild animals (and birds) and domesticated animals (and birds), because wild animals feed on natural food. Also, there are many studies that show that children who are breast-fed have stronger immune systems and are healthier than children who were fed with formula milk."

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> 1. Did you read this info carefully?

Yes, I read it all, and that's why I pointed out that your central
contentions had already been ruled out (both "feed" and
"miticides") and the level of certainty was high enough about
this issue to make the point part of an "FAQ".

> "...another possibility is that neonicotinoids are another factor..."

While this has not yet been ruled out, it is hard to believe, as
prior incidents blamed on neonicotinoids did not present the
symptoms seen in "CCD". It also has nothing to do with the
claims with which you started this thread, as neonicotinoids 
would be a "pesticide kill", not a result of beekeeper miticide
use.

> 2. Do you use any chemicals? 

I'm not going to get drawn any further into this meandering discussion,
as the FAQ I cited rules out any mite treatments as being connected
with CCD, so my practices are irrelevant. If it helps you to feel any
better, I was one of the first guys to implement powdered sugar
treatments in a production environment.

> 3. Do you use any kind of syrup for autumn and spring feeding?


Sure, but again, I'm not going to get drawn any further into this 
meandering discussion, as the FAQ I cited rules out "feed" as well.

Therefore, *neither* of the items you brought up when you started
this thread have anything to do with CCD.


----------



## Boris

Jim,

Can you deny my previous statement (for RSUCHAN and you)?
If not - my discussion with you is useless.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

I don't want to insert myself into any debate between Jim Fischer and Boris, but I'd like some more information at this point.



> There are many studies that show differences in the immune systems of wild animals (and birds) and domesticated animals (and birds), because wild animals feed on natural food. . . . -Boris


Can you provide the references in primary literature for these studies, Boris? I've read some of the studies comparing breast milk and formula, but I don't recall ever seeing any studies published in peer-reviewed literature about compromised immune systems in domesticated animals (birds, as well as insects, are "animals," too) because of the diets they consume.


----------



## JohnK and Sheri

>>>studies that show differences in the immune systems of wild animals (and birds) and domesticated animals (and birds), because wild animals feed on natural food.<<<
I would be interested in reading these studies. Where were they conducted? Do you have a link to them? If not, can you tell me where to find them?
Sheri


----------



## Boris

Kieck and Sheri,

The title of the study is “Immune system of feral and domestic swine.”
But this is a bee-forum and I will add more info for you on my new page.


“Even with 30 colonies fed exactly the same there would be differences in mortality rates over winter.”
Sheri,
Your statement is incorrect, because I did not say that 30 colonies are enough.
My statements:” Scientists from universities (!!!)…And of course, as you pointed out, we would have to obtain results of my experiments from different locations.”


Boris


----------



## RSUCHAN

*Study????*

So were is the bee study???


----------



## Boris

“So were is the bee study???”

Aspera's statement: “With regard to nutrition, most domesticated animals in the U.S. have there nutrition requirements defined and revised every 15 years or so by the national research council (NRC). Honeybees are generally not considered economically important enough to have this done. Lets face it, 1/2 of all the colonies in the world could die and most governments wouldn't even bat an eye. We have so much money going to Iraq, there aren't even grants available for human nutrition research (!!!) Right now I think that most CCD research money is coming from state budgets, not the feds.”

Boris


----------



## Boris

I agree with the first part of Sheri’s statement, “Most changes in commercial beekeeping have been merely chemical bandits trying to ward off problems”, but I do not agree with the last part of her statement: “for which no other realistic option is available. ”

There are some practical solutions:
- Varroa Screened Bottom Board;
- Drone Cell Foundations;
- ARS Russians bees, SMR/VSH bees, ARS Russian crossed with SMR/VSH
More details are here: http://www.beebehavior.com/bee_enemies.php

I do not use syrup and I NEVER used any chemicals. My ARS Russian bees are healthy.
More importantly, at the present time there are no reports about "massive deaths of ARS Russian colonies.”

Boris


----------



## BjornBee

These are the type discussions that make everything go round and round. To even suggest that something as SBB or drone cell is a real solution to the discussion at hand...that being CCD, is outright wrong.

Most don't even know what the cause is, let alone corrective action. I recently had to hear the "promotion" of a local club president russian bees, and he suggests that his russians alone, since they don't have CCD, are superior for this fact alone. Pure HOGWASH!

I have been suggesting that nutrition, suppressed immune systems, low bee protein, and stress are all playing a part. (Which the FAQ site Jim F. referenced by Penn State, hits upon 3 out of 4. The only one missing in the ongoing examination is suppressed immune systems) But does that mean all migratory beekeeper are going to have CCD colonies? No. And does that mean anyone who has no CCD can wrongly suggest that they have somehow immune bees to CCD or superior stock in any way? No!

Boris, your crossover theories and suggestions from one fact or set of circumstances, and applying them to something altogether different is quite amazing, to say it politely. But let me say, its wrong just the same.


----------



## Boris

BjornBee,
Did you read my statement carefully?

"The current problem can be divided into two levels: 1) The immune systems of many bee colonies are weakened; 2) A virus, a disease or another unknown problem is affecting colonies with weakened systems.
I think that our discussion about the second level of the current massive dying is not productive. Sooner or later, bee scientists will find the problem."

But there are some real solutions for the first level of the current problem. And I prefer to talk about this level.


Boris


----------



## BjornBee

Boris, yes I read your statement. Unfortunately, my comments on the last post are true in regards to more than just your last comment at hand....


----------



## Kieck

> . . .The immune systems of many bee colonies are weakened. . . . -Boris


Any data to back this up, or is this just speculation? How has it been determined that the immune systems of bee colonies are weakened, rather than bees contracting a different pathogen that they're not capable of fighting off?


----------



## Boris

"Any data to back this up"

Kieck,
1. I will answer your question on my new web-page.
2. But for now, do you agree that we have to try to use the reasonable solutions I posted above to fight the problems?

Boris


----------



## Kieck

I look forward to reading the studies that back up your statements, Boris.

I assume you're talking about these "reasonable solutions?"



> There are some real solutions:
> - Varroa Screened Bottom Board;
> - Drone Cell Foundations;
> - ARS Russians bees, SMR/VSH bees, ARS Russian crossed with SMR/VSH


First, I doubt screened bottom board have that much effect on CCD. After all, as others have pointed out, SBB have varying effects even on Varroa, depending on the local climatic conditions.

Drone cell foundations? How would those help?

ARS Russian bees? I'm assuming you're really talking about "pure Russians," and include ARS (Agricultural Research Service, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture) just to demonstrate that the bees are "pedigreed," so to speak.

You asked for any reports of Russian bees collapsing -- I'll ask the other way: does any evidence exist that Russian/SMR/VSH bees are LESS prone to CCD, or have avoided CCD entirely?

What you're proposing as reasonable solutions sound like Varroa control methods. Are you convinced that CCD is somehow linked to Varroa? Do you have any evidence to back that up?


----------



## Panhandle Bee man

There are initial reports of CCD being found in Hawai. But no varroa mites.


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

Please read "How to fight against Varroa Mites without chemicals" part of my webpage: http://www.beebehavior.com/bee_enemies.php
1. My main point is that you have to have healthy colonies to be prepared for new viruses or other problems (like #4).
2. My second point is that your colonies will be weak if you use syrup and chemicals.
3. I will ask for permission to post the official reply to my request regarding the current situation with ARS Russian colonies (as I did for my previous theme): 
http://www.beebehavior.com/global_warming_bee_behavior.php
4. This is a fact: "Apiaries in Webb, Mississippi in winter of 2000 had an opportunity to witness the Russian bees' durability thanks to a harsh winter. Of his1,500 domestic colonies, 1,200 to 1,400 were lost, whereas of his 2,000 Russian-bred colonies, only 2 didn't survive."
(USDA web site) 
5. "Charlie has decided not to treat these colonies for varroa saying "if they die, we don’t want them". This will greatly benefit the selection program but will cause Charlie to lose some colonies." More details are here: http://www.beebehavior.com/key_players.php


Boris


----------



## Kieck

I understand that previously weakened colonies may be more susceptible to diseases and/or parasites. However, excessive Varroa loads -- as far as I've read -- have not be noted among any of the colonies that have collapsed from CCD. To me, that suggests that the bees that have been lost to CCD are not any more stressed by Varroa than the colonies that are still alive.

In other words, Varroa seems to be one of the few factors that has largely been ruled out.

On the other hand, if Varroa are serving as vectors of a new or different disease, even small numbers of Varroa may have profound impacts.

As far as the "ARS Russian," I was simply trying to determine whether you were, in fact, simply referring to "pure" Russian bees, especially those obtained directly from the USDA. Are "ARS Russians" superior to "pure Russians" from other sources? Why?

Nothing official here, but am I reading between the lines correctly? Are you really saying that colonies from Russian stock obtained directly from the USDA have so far been unaffected by CCD entirely?


----------



## Boris

"Nothing official here, but am I reading between the lines correctly? Are you really saying that colonies from Russian stock obtained directly from the USDA have so far been unaffected by CCD entirely?"

Kieck,
Please wait until I receive permission from the officials who provided this information to me.

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> There are initial reports of CCD being found in Hawai. 
> But no varroa mites.

1) Where (which island)?

2) Who reported this? 
2a) The person who lost the hives?
2b) A 3rd party in Hawaii?
2c) Someone on the mainland?

3) Can anyone verify the specific symptoms seen in Hawaii
against the MAAREC list of "common symptoms"?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> 1. I will answer your question on my new web-page.

Wait a second here... you _*started*_ this thread with questions,
and now you seem to want to posture as if you have some sort
of "answers"? I'm very confused by your various statements here, 
given that you have ignored wide swaths of the information put 
out by the folks that are working with the affected colonies.

You seem to have made up your mind as to the causes of CCD,
and, regardless of what facts are offered by others, you persist
with the same armchair diagnosis of bees you have never seen,
and a set of conditions you haven't even bothered to read about.

> 2. But for now, do you agree that we have to try to use 
> the reasonable solutions I posted above to fight the problems?

No, I don't agree at all - your so-called "solutions" are things that
may have no connection with CCD at all! Clearly, you seem to
feel that varroa have something to do with CCD, but the report
of CCD appearing in Hawaii (where it is well-proven that there
are no varroa) implies that CCD has nothing to do with varroa,
the viruses transmitted by varroa, or the general weakening of
a colony that is beset with varroa.

So, given that varroa seems to not be required for CCD to cause
a colony to "collapse", can you now see that focusing on varroa
is not going to "solve" the CCD problem?


----------



## Aspera

CCD in HI. Now that is strange. Has this been confirmed? If so it really could rule out a lot of infectious causes as they have reports of varroa. And if its in HI, why not New Zealand?


----------



## Boris

Jim,

You mixed everything as always. Please do not put ANY MORE your words in my mouth.

My first statement is here:
“I think that there are at least two major problems in American beekeeping: 1) autumn and spring syrup feeding (instead of honey); 2) usage of chemicals as a bee management technique (prevention against mites, American foulbrood, and Nosema disease).”
My previous statements are here:
1. My main point is that you have to have healthy colonies to be prepared for new viruses or other problems (like #4).
2. My second point is that your colonies will be weak if you use syrup and chemicals.

My web page at least contains some practical recommendations.
But were is your real proposal (recommendations) to keep colonies healthy?
Are you a "chemical bandit " in Sheri’s classification? 



Boris


----------



## George Fergusson

I don't know if it's been confirmed Aspera. Jerry Bromenshenk mentioned in an email to Bee-L today that:



> The comment is often made, if you control the mites, the virus issues are not a problem.
> 
> How then, do we explain new reports that we have received from long-term,
> experienced beekeepers in Hawaii, who are also seeing what looks like CCD?


It's the only reference I've heard so far about Hawaii and CCD. I don't think CCD has necessarily been confirmed in Hawaii. Perhaps Jim knows something I don't know.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I don't think CCD has necessarily been confirmed in Hawaii. 
> Perhaps Jim knows something I don't know.

Maybe I do, and then again, maybe I don't. 

I'm sure we will soon have adequate confirmation or refutation
from multiple parties, so I'll wait for that, as I am not about to 
violate any confidences.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> You mixed everything as always.
> Please do not put ANY MORE your words in my mouth.

I quoted you using cut-and-paste, so I don't think 
I'm putting any words in your mouth.

Perhaps the title of the thread "_*What is causing massive
bee deaths in he US?*_" does not apply to your suggestions,
but it should be clear by now to all and sundry that the factors
you want to present as "problems" have nothing to do with the
"massive bee deaths in the US".

> “I think that there are at least two major problems in American
> beekeeping: 1) autumn and spring syrup feeding (instead of honey)

That's an opinion, one that is contradicted by multiple studies in
the USA and Canada done over the years. In each and every
controlled study, honey came in dead last in terms of overwintering 
ability.

> 2) usage of chemicals as a bee management technique (prevention
> against mites, American foulbrood, and Nosema disease).”

Again, that's an opinion, one that can best be described as "fringe".
While some would agree that certain "chemicals" are not a good
idea at all (Check-Mite comes to mind here), there are other chemicals
that have been shown to be harmless and have yet to result in
resistance (Fumadil is a great example of this). 

> 1. My main point is that you have to have healthy colonies to be
> prepared for new viruses or other problems (like #4).

Sure, but your assumption is that anyone who disagrees with your
prior statements will somehow have less healthy colonies. This sort
of "holier than thou" claim is completely baseless and without merit.

> 2. My second point is that your colonies will be weak if you use 
> syrup and chemicals.

No one's ever shown this to be even close to fact.
The statement is pure dogma, and once again, a "holier than thou" 
claim that is completely baseless, and without merit.

> My web page at least contains some practical recommendations.

If you want to discuss something, discuss it. If you simply want to
drive some traffic to your web page, this is not the forum for that 
sort of effort. We went over "comb honey lifecycle costs" (and over, 
and over, and over, and over....) until you got more of a clue on 
actual life-cycle costs from myself and others, so I hope that your web
page was corrected/improved as a result. I don't have the energy to 
slog through the same tedious process with your "*answers looking for
questions*" on subjects like feeding and treatments, subjects that could
fill several books and still be incomplete.

> But were is your real proposal (recommendations) to keep 
> colonies healthy?

I am a very conservative and by-the-book beekeeper, so I
do not make up my own theories or proposals. I read the
studies and the magazines, and (no surprise) books.
Beekeeping is difficult enough without making things up
as I go along.


----------



## Boris

Jim, 

these two facts partially confirm my theory that the current massive deaths of bee colonies in the US are occurring because of the weak state of bee colonies: 
- "Apiaries in Webb, Mississippi in winter of 2000 had an opportunity to witness the Russian bees' durability thanks to a harsh winter. Of his1,500 domestic colonies, 1,200 to 1,400 were lost, whereas of his 2,000 Russian-bred colonies, only 2 didn't survive."
(USDA web site) 
- "Charlie has decided not to treat these colonies for varroa saying "if they die, we don’t want them". This will greatly benefit the selection program but will cause Charlie to lose some colonies." More details are here: http://www.beebehavior.com/key_players.php
And his bees are "breast-fed" !!!

You did not answer for my main question: are you a "chemical bandit " in Sheri’s classification?

P.S. My website contains practical, up-to-date information and I think that some 
beekeepers may find the site useful.
The first part of my new article will be ready in one week.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

CCD was around in 2000?

Mississippi has "harsh" winters? Does Mississippi ever have the sort of winter weather that would be likely to demonstrate differential survival between Russian bees and Italian bees (or any other bees)?

Around here (South Dakota), we question whether Mississippi ever even has "winter."


----------



## Boris

Kiek, 

1. My post is not about CCD, my post is about "...the weak state of bee colonies..." – the first level in my classification. PLEASE try to understand this.
2. "...Of his 1,500 domestic colonies (Not Russians !!!), 1,200 to 1,400 were lost, whereas of his 2,000 Russian-bred colonies, only 2 didn't survive."
You can go to www.weather.com and check all data. 
Also you can contact USDA about winter 2000 situation.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Boris,

Your first post -- the one that started this thread -- began:



> What is causing massive bee deaths in the US?
> 
> There are reports of massive deaths of bee colonies in the US. . . . -Boris


The "massive" losses of bee colonies this year have been attributed to CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder). Therefore, I was lead to believe that this thread is about CCD, not just ". . .the weak state of bee colonies. . . ."

I obtained the papers about overwintering by Russian versus "domestic" colonies from the USDA. The example you cited in Webb, Mississippi, was reported by Hubert Tubbs, a USDA-ARS cooperator, as an example of reduced mite loads helping the bees overwinter more successfully, in his opinion.

Dr. Rinderer, at the time, attributed part of the Russians' "superior winter survival to being highly resistant to tracheal mites, something that's still uncommon for standard commercial colonies."

So, are we talking about CCD on this thread, or not? Do you know of "massive" losses this year that have not been attributed to CCD?


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

1. You are talking about "External influences" of the current problem, but I would like to find the "roots". 
2. "...Winter 2000–2001. Winter was unusually cold and long during 2000-2001." USDA
3. Please wait just One week. Let me finish the first part of my new article.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Boris,

1. Huh?

2. I recommend you go back and re-read the report that you're citing. I couldn't find any statements about "cold" or "long[-lasting]" in reference to the winter. The only description I could find was "harsh." I still say, what's "harsh" in Webb, Mississippi, may be "mild" or "not even winter weather" in South Dakota, much less points farther north.

Honestly, I don't take any statements about bees' abilities to overwinter in the south to mean anything about their abilities to overwinter farther north. The conditions are considerably different.

I lived in Kansas for a few years. Anytime the temperature dropped to 0F there, people complained bitterly. A frequent reaction when I mentioned that winter temperatures regularly get to -20F or -30F in South Dakota was, "Can people survive those temperatures?"

Bees that overwintered easily in Kansas have grave difficulty surviving the winters in South Dakota. That's not saying that winters are easier on the bees in Kansas -- conditions are just different.

3) I'm waiting, but I'd just like to know right now whether you were talking about the current "massive die-offs," or not.


----------



## Ian

Boris suggested to Jim F.

>>Jim,

You mixed everything as always. Please do not put ANY MORE your words in my mouth.


He is not mixing the pot, you are. And you just keep adding!
Try not to mix thoughts with facts, it just confuses everything that is going on.


----------



## Boris

Kieck and Ian,

I will post the first part of my article with some scientists' comments in one
week, as I promised. I hope you will get answers to your questions.

Boris


----------



## Boris

"This article is written by Graham White which is a digest of his letter sent to the UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides with regard to a systemic insecticide called IMIDACLOPRID.":
http://www.bbka.org.uk/articles/imidacloprid.php

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Have you switched from lookings for the "roots" to looking for "external influences," Boris?

If you haven't already found it, check out this thread:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208409

Imidacloprid is being discussed already, and the link you provided has been quoted on this other thread.


----------



## Boris

No, this is just a small part of my research.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Oh, I thought you were using this thread to explore the "root" causes of "massive bee deaths," not trying to pin blame on any one chemical in particular.

Still seems peculiar to me that U.S. beekeepers wouldn't have noticed any effects of imidacloprid on bees in general until almost twenty years after its introduction. Use of imidacloprid has been widespread in North America for years. Why wouldn't problems have shown up before this?


----------



## Joel

We are having a great deal of discussion on the amount of lost hives being reported this year. Is anyone aware of any postings reflecting the numbers of reported losses to compare with previous years? Wouldn't it be helpful to have a view of the numbers per state? I'm assuming this is part of the researchers information and also many don't want to be pinpointed by location but certainly a statewide idea would not comprimise anyone.


----------



## suttonbeeman

JIm

I would love to have a friendly wager when all is out on ccd...I'll bet you 100 to one that Imidacloprid and other like pesticides (goucho) are the reason. Sure there are colonies that die of other resons (mites and related causes, bad queens and on and on..... but from my experience and my connections to the research...I can tell you I am very confident that pesticides are the reason for ccd. One beek even had had most colonies turned around until a freeze which elimated pollen gathering...and the bees started using stored pollen.....bingo 40 more dead outs. Guess what is in the pollen>>>>>> dont bet me unless you want to loose....I dont bet unless I am confident I'll win!


----------



## BjornBee

Sutton,
I'll take that bet for 10 dollars. At 100 to one, its a value play at this point. Just playing the odds. But I'll make sure you either pay me the thousand just the same if you lose, or I'll call you out big time. I'll have my 10 dollars ready if you win.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I would love to have a friendly wager when all is out on ccd...I'll bet 
> you 100 to one that Imidacloprid and other like pesticides (goucho) 
> are the reason.

OK, so who holds the money? I'll send my $1,000.00 Monday, and
at 100 to 1 odds, if I win, you owe me $100,000.00. If you win,
you get my $1000.00. If you'd rather I not bet so much, I'll bet
$100.00, and you'll only be risking $10,000.00

But I think you should read  this post (and the rest of that thread) and 
then withdraw your wager. I'd rather not take your money.

But if you insist, I'll take the bet at the odds you offered it.
But understand I already know that it *can't *be Imidacloprid poisoning
or Gaucho poisoning, as I was over in France, and saw hives suffering 
from the "Sunflower problems" with my own eyes.

But I'll take your money, if you insist.


----------



## suttonbeeman

Jim

Wager will have to be small.....after a bad crop in Fl in 2005 due to hurricanes(my orange locations are located where the three hurricanes crossed paths) a drought in Ky in summer of 2005 which gave us a 50% honey crop followed by the 4 th worst year in last 35 years in orange in 2006 and my worst year in Kentucky in 30 years of beekeeping(caused by 2005 drought, wet cool spring and record wet andcold sept/oct) cash is very short!! To top this all off I havent been paid for almonds yet and now to top all that off I called 10 days ago to see when the bees would be released from almonds and was told 25-30 March. So we bring all equipment back to Ky for splits and recieve call today that bees can be moved! Now since I split a load with a guy from Michigan and he left Florida yesterday I get to go to Michigan and bring bees back To FLorida along with all equipment an dforklift I just got home with!!! So cash is short!!! But on a serious noteI still really believe when all is in that the main cause will be the nico....insecticides! I had colonies with low or no mite counts and perfect looking brood patterns end up with no bees in 5 days or less with a honey flow on! From the people whom I have talked with who are directly involved with research every new piece of the puzzell seems to be pointing to the insecticide.....time will tell!


----------



## Jim Fischer

Your tale has touched me heart on this Saint Patty's Day,
so I'll not be takin' so much O' your gold.

A buck, a dime, a penny, a pound of honey, I'll wager
whatever you feel comfy with.


----------



## Ian

>>cash is very short

suttonbeeman,

100-1 odds, from a man short on cash, 
must mean your very confident on your claims,
until you quickly find out there is more to the story than the spin let on,
and then your simply short on cash, and the wager falls flat!?


----------



## DANIEL QUINCE

This started to look like the rhetoric’s back to Aristotle (not that I was there ...). Is that because the KNOWLEDGE AND CLEAR FACTS are missing?
But anyhow, does anyone know if the frames in a CCD dead hive have lots of queen cells,.... like 30-40 queen cells in 2 suppers?
Thanks
Daniel
O, and who said that there are no dead bodies? There are no dead bodies IN THE HIVE, but they could have had an emergency landing somewhere else.


----------



## ozzy

After reading all these posts I am certain I don't know the cause of current losses, nor does anyone else apparently. I do know that after feeding several thousand lbs of sugar syrup last fall I didn't lose a colony. Can I conclude that sugar doesn't weaken the immune system of a bee over that of feeding honey; not really, but since I have fed sugar every year for decades without a problem I doubt it is the destroying the immune system of my bees. 
I was thinking that maybe imacloprid might be the cause and contacted a French beekeeper for an update. His comments surprised me and threw a monkey wrench in my theory and probably in a few of yours. Here is what he said in his words(you may translate better than mine below it)

le gaucho" imilaclopride " matière active est un produit tres efficace pour
protéger les semences de mais et tournesol des insectes qui mangent la
graine dans le sol . tellement efficace et pas cher que les autres firmes
Françaises notament ne vendaient plus leurs produits beaucoups plus
polluants... il y a 5 ans on a eu en France beaucoup de mortalités
d'abeilles à cause d'une épidémie de nosémose et cela dans toutes les zones
y compris montagne ou zones tres éloignées des cultures . les apiculteurs
ont perdu beaucoup de ruches et ont accusé le gaucho . en prouvant que l a
ruche était morte d' empoisonnement l'assurance remboursait 1OO euros par
ruche et 0 pour la maladie !!! tu commences à comprendre ? bien sur les
maisons concurentes de Bayer on fait monter la mayonnaise résultat gaucho
est interdit en France seul pays en Europe avec le Portugal qui ne
l'utilisait pas . La mortalité des abeilles à cause du gaucho n'a jamais été
prouvée et le pire de toute l'absurdité du dossier c'est que exactement la
mème molécule qui s'apelle le cofidor est autorisée et employée pendant la
floraison sur les arbres fruitiers . On nous prendrait pas un peu pour des
cons ? ???

HERE IS THE TRANSLATION of my friend email:
Le gaucho "imilaclopride" active material is a product efficient to protect
seedings of corn and sunflowers against insects that eat the seed in the
soil. So efficient and cheap that other french companies couldn't even sell
their products that were more toxic. 5 years ago in france we had a huge
mortality of bees because of the "nosema" epidemic which touched all
regions, moutains, even far from corn/sunflower fields. Beekeepers lost a
lot of beehives and accused the product Gaucho. Prooving that the beehive was dead
from poison the insurance would pay 100 euros per hive and some for the
diseased ones. You start to understand? Of course the competition to Bayer
put their nose into it so the result is that now gaucho is prohibited in
France -only country in Europe- with Portugal who didn't use it anyway. The
death of bees because of the use of the gaucho has never been proved and the
worst of the stupidity of the subject is that the same molecule that is in
the gaucho called cofidor is authorized and used during the blooming season
on fruit trees. They take us as dumb people, right???

He didn't say if they are still experiencing heavy losses as a result of its use on fruit trees but I would assume yes.

I also sent an email to a friend that forwarded it to a scientist in Brazil. Here is the translation-
I forwarded your e-mail about the subject to David De Jong in Brazil, an American who is a leading scientist in varroa and other diseases in bees. David has lived in Brazil for the last 23 years and works at the University of Sao Paulo in Ribeirao Preto.

He sent me his answer in Portuguese so I translated for you.

"Apparently we have a serious problem with this insecticide in Brazil also.

We are trying to get the pure agent for our final tests but we think that the "diseases" that have been appearing are due to this insecticide and other similar ones.

Fipronil ( sold here as Regent) must be a systemic, for usage in the soil. But it has been used in other ways, for instance mixed with herbicide, to eliminate leafy turnip in flower ( I, Silvia, am not sure of the proper name for this plant)
Regent is added to kill ants. During the first two days there is still flowers and the bees end up getting contaminated. 
Fipronil is very potent. Very low doses kill bees. 



Migratory beekeepers were the first to experience heavy losses and I heard from a friend attending a beekeepers meeting in Northern Illinois that many of the beekeepers there lost a lot of hives too. However they apparently lost them to starvation with only a few showing characteristics similar to CCD. No bees at all and no brood so may not be exactly the same. They may have just run out of food and drifted into colonies during Dec. when it was warm.


----------



## Aspera

Wow. That is an interesting email, especially the bit about the fruit tree applications. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Kieck

suttonbeeman:

I'll take you up on that bet. I'd lay $10 on it. I'll lay $10 on "Fipronil," too, if you're offering the same odds.

Just as an anecdote, I know some of my bees were sprayed last summer with both imidacloprid and fipronil. I know they were sprayed the summer before last, too. And I know they were sprayed with many, many other insecticides.

I know they were because I was the one doing the spraying. I was spraying soybeans less than a mile from some of my bees, and actually saw some of those bees working the soybeans as I was spraying them.

No sign of CCD (or loss of any sort) in those particular bees so far. I'm sure some of the workers died as result of the exposure, but, then again, many of the workers likely die on the windshields of cars and trucks, too.


----------



## Boris

The first part of my article "The weak condition of bee colonies in North America" is just an outline of my future experiments and research, which I will conduct over several years:
http://www.beebehavior.com/weak_state_bee_colonies.php

All comments in polite form are welcomed.

Boris


----------



## Boris

I've just added very useful information about HMF and HFCS. More
details are here: http://www.beebehavior.com/weak_state_bee_colonies.php

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Boris:

Two recommendations for your web site, just from skimming through it quickly.

1) You really need citations for the "How can my theory be confirmed?" section. You imply that you've read primary literature on the topics, but you have not listed the papers that support your claims.

2) The Garcia-Alvarez et al. (2000) paper under the HMF and HFCS section is really a methodology paper, not a study of honey components. The paper seems intended as a publication of a way to analyze honey, not as an analysis of the components of honey. As it is, it really does not support your position.

I hope you view these as "constructive criticism." I intended my comments as constructive, offering suggestions to improve your site.


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

the main problem in my research is that access to many sources of current
information is restricted.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Hmmm. . . I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "access to many sources of current information is restricted."

If you mean that you and most other people can not obtain the information, that likely means one of several things:

1) It's proprietary information. Someone is expecting to make money off it, and is restricting access to information that they have generated to avoid infringement by others.

2) The information has not yet been published, and the authors/researchers are keeping it quiet until it is published so no one else can "scoop" them.

3) The information is wrong. Data has been falsified, results have deliberately been skewed, etc., to make the research say what the researchers want the research to say. Otherwise, why not give open access to it, unless 1) or 2) above apply?

There are likely other reasons as well, but most scientists/researchers WANT their research efforts to be made public.

If you mean that full text cannot be linked to your web site, don't worry about that. You can still cite the information. For example:

Seeley, T. D., and R. A. Morse. 1977. Dispersal behavior of honey bee swarms. Psyche 84: 199-209.

is a full citation of a paper I happened to have laying by my computer as I'm typing this. If you want to read the whole paper, you have to take time to locate it -- but I provided the citation to tell you where it was published.


----------



## Jim Fischer

Hey! I'm impressed, Kieck.

You hit all the points, dead center.

I need add nothing but my appreciation for some non-fuzzy thinking.

Even "private communications" require a specific citation style, such
as: "_Private Communication with Dr. John Smith, March 2007_", what
this does is clearly indicate the source, and also does the important
job of giving credit where credit is due, and not undermining Dr. John
Smith's "priority" in terms of "discovery" of this or that.


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

Below you can see the type of answers that I received when I tried to obtain data. 

"Hi Boris,
All of the survey data being collected from those
efforts are confidential, thus those data are not available."


Boris


----------



## Boris

1. I think this information will be interesting for forum members:
"ADM is a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices located in Decatur, Illinois. ADM is engaged in the processing and sale of agricultural products, including corn syrup and HFCS, which are among the products it produces from corn through the wet milling process at domestic plants in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Clinton, Iowa, and Decatur, Illinois. Its net sales in 2001 were approximately $20 billion. Its sales of corn wet milled products in the United
States in 2001 exceeded $1 billion, including HFCS sales of approximately $480 million and corn syrup sales of approximately $66 million." 
More details are here: 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f11900/11901.htm

"DECATUR, Ill., June 17, 2004 - LAWFUEL - Archer Daniels Midland Company announced that it reached a settlement today with the plaintiff class in the federal anti-trust civil suit regarding high fructose corn syrup. Under the terms of the settlement, ADM agreed to pay $400 million to the plaintiff class which is comprised of customers who purchased high fructose corn syrup in the early 1990s."
http://www.lawfuel.com/show-release.asp?ID=1038

2. Now I'm trying to get official information about the concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42. If anyone has access to this information, please forward me the links or citations to publicly available sources. Thanks.

Boris


----------



## Kieck

Boris:

First, you're looking for "results," not "data." I would expect many researchers to keep their data confidential at least until publication of their results, and especially if their data consist of surveys of beekeepers.

You should still provide citations for published works. If it hasn't been published, the "results" are not yet known in all likelihood.

Secondly, while not trying to exonerate Archer Daniels Midland, the lawsuit you cite is -- as you quote -- an "anti-trust civil suit." The lawsuit isn't about "bad" HFCS, it's about ADM controlling too much of the market.

I believe HMF levels in HFCS vary from batch to batch, not just from type to type.


----------



## Boris

Kieck, 

1. The two links about ADM that I posted were just interesting.

2. The new link below also provides some facts:
"The UK’s current derogation for a higher HMF limit of 80mg/kg has been removed. Honey must now meet the 40mg/kg limit except for those which come from tropical climates or blends of these." More details are here:
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/honeyregsguidance.pdf#page=8

As you understand, the UK government must have had a strong reason to reduce the HMF limit by half.

3. "I believe HMF levels in HFCS vary from batch to batch, not just from type to type." 

I am trying to obtain official information from USDA.

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

Yes, ADM is a company that plays fast and loose with the laws of
the land, and has done so for a long time. This is not news to 
anyone.

While it is tempting to try to blame some massive agri-business
company for the CCD problem, no one has found any link between
HFCS use and CCD. In fact, what they have found has forced them
to *eliminate* "feed" from the list of "suspected causes", as there
is no pattern that links feed choices to CCD, and victims have been
found that used each of the usual types of feed.


----------



## Boris

Jim,

How can you explain this fact:
"The UK’s current derogation for a higher HMF limit of 80mg/kg has been removed. Honey must now meet the 40mg/kg limit except for those which come from tropical climates or blends of these." 

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> How can you explain this fact:
> "The UK’s current derogation for a higher HMF limit of 80mg/kg has been removed. Honey must now meet the 40mg/kg limit except for those which come from tropical climates or blends of these."


Easy Boris - anyone who has been keeping bees longer than a few
seasons is well aware of the ever-tightening HMF regulations in the 
UK and EU member nations. It has been going on for years, and is
very old news.

Why, you ask? Simple - honey from cooler places like the UK and EU
never get exposed to the hot summer temperatures of other places,
so this restriction is a defacto "non-tariff barrier to trade", an unethical
and illegal way to exploit the WTO rules to prohibit most imported honey
from the warmer places on the planet, all on a premise that seems to
conflict with the findings of those selling "Manuaka high HMF honey"
for medicinal purposes.

I think I've explained enough.
Next time, do your own homework, and don't presume to "challenge"
me just because you are too lazy to do it yourself.


----------



## Kieck

I'm not a chemist, but let me see if I've got this straight:

HFCS with more than 40 mg/kg of HMF seems "toxic" to bees, yet tropical honey bees are likely consuming honey with up to or more than 80 mg/kg of HMF?

How do the honey bees in tropical areas survive?


----------



## Boris

Jim,

I asked you this question because I was surprised when I tried to find official information about the concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42. This information is not available on the web sites of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM"), Minnesota Corn Processors, LLC ("MCP") and the USDA. 
Also, official regulations about HMF levels for honey are not available on the USDA web site.


"How do the honey bees in tropical areas survive?" (Kieck)
Because their immune systems are different.


Boris


----------



## dickm

What this has to do with CCD I'm not sure. I think a simplr Ph test will give an approximate reading of HMF in syrup.

dickm


----------



## Kieck

> This information is not available on the web sites of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM"), Minnesota Corn Processors, LLC ("MCP") and the USDA. -Boris


Again, Boris, I think this is because HMF varies from batch to batch (or lot to lot, or however you wish to word it). To post such information on a web site would require massive amounts of testing, linking test results to batch numbers (not just "types), and entering that information onto a web site.

While high levels of HMF may cause problems for honey bees, as Jim Fischer and dickm have pointed out, "feed" and contaminants in supplemental feed for bees have largely been ruled out as causes for CCD.


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

1. The companies could at least provide the level range of HMF in HFCSs, but this information is also not available. 
2. Again - my article is not about CCD. My article is about "The weak condition of bee colonies in North America."

Boris


----------



## nsmith1957

I read the below linked article on the net today. Is it correct? Who knows. Thought I would pass it on. It mentions GM corn as a possiable culprit. Could the feeding of HFCS derived from GM corn be a problem?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,473166,00.html


----------



## Kieck

The "GM corn" link has been hashed and rehashed on several other threads here.

Several problems still exist with the idea of the "GM corn" hypothesis:

1) Timing. GM corn (I assume they are specifically talking about Bt corn, since RoundUp Ready and LibertyLink corns are unlikely to cause any traits that would directly affect insects) has been around for years. Why wouldn't CCD or problems have shown up before this year? What would explain the occurences similar to CCD in years long before GM crops were create?

2) Supplemental feed or not has shown no differences -- as far as I've read -- in "causing" CCD. That means that not only is feeding HFCS not the cause of CCD, feeding HFCS containing products from GM plants is not the cause.


----------



## nsmith1957

Kieck said:


> GM corn (I assume they are specifically talking about Bt corn............


Yes, the article specificly mentioned Bt corn.

[Edit: Add part of article]
The study in question is a small research project conducted at the University of Jena from 2001 to 2004. The researchers examined the effects of pollen from a genetically modified maize variant called "Bt corn" on bees. A gene from a soil bacterium had been inserted into the corn that enabled the plant to produce an agent that is toxic to insect pests. The study concluded that there was no evidence of a "toxic effect of Bt corn on healthy honeybee populations." But when, by sheer chance, the bees used in the experiments were infested with a parasite, something eerie happened. According to the Jena study, a "significantly stronger decline in the number of bees" occurred among the insects that had been fed a highly concentrated Bt poison feed.

According to Hans-Hinrich Kaatz, a professor at the University of Halle in eastern Germany and the director of the study, the bacterial toxin in the genetically modified corn may have "altered the surface of the bee's intestines, sufficiently weakening the bees to allow the parasites to gain entry -- or perhaps it was the other way around. We don't know."

Of course, the concentration of the toxin was ten times higher in the experiments than in normal Bt corn pollen. In addition, the bee feed was administered over a relatively lengthy six-week period.


----------



## bjerm2

Has anyone thought of the possibility that our bees have in-bred so much that their communications between the middle aged bees (nurse and house) is at the critical point where they no longer 'think' logically and leave the hives as if they were swarming? Then once out in the fields do not come back to the hive as if they lost their way same as if a true swarm does. The bees leave and do not come back to the old nest.
Dan


----------



## Jim Fischer

>> "How do the honey bees in tropical areas survive?" (Kieck)

> "Because their immune systems are different." (Boris)

*What???*

You had better have some very compelling proof of this
claim Boris.

But you don't, of course.


----------



## Ian

>>concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42.

Boris,

Take a sample of HFCS to your chief apiarists. They will tell you exactly what the HMF is in the syrup.

Its what I do every year with left over syrup from the previous year, to make certain it hasn't degraded over the summer or wintering months. Degraded HFCS is very bad for the bees. And there is a lot of information floating around everywhere on this.
In fact, if you actually looked a little harder, and probably a good start would be from your chief apiarist, they would tell you exactly what you don't want to hear.

I could sit here and explain to you all the different sugars avaliable, where they come from, and how they are refined. The good sugars to use, and the not so good sugars to use, and why they are good or not. And even get right into detail on how each type is refined, and converted to the sugars, and then get into great detail on old myths about feeding types of sugars and how some still hold merit, and others not due to new and advancing technology in the refining process. 
But I don't have that time, but I am sure you will find all that good stuff if your would really want to find it.

But sure, criticising ADM here on this site is much more productive to your research,


----------



## dickm

NSSmith1957:
The study you referred to was a pilot study. I posted the link somewhere here some time ago. If you cherry pick from it it seems to say "GM corn kills bees." If you read the whole article it says that caged bees that were confined and forced to eat only BT pollen (A rare event in bee life) and inconclusive results occured. It was interesting though. 

dickm


----------



## Boris

"You had better have some very compelling proof of this
claim Boris."
Jim - this is old basic fact.

Ian, 
please try to be more productive - show us your answer for this simple question: "concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42."
Also you can contact Dr. Currie directly about his statement: "There is evidence that high levels of HMF have injured bees."

Boris


----------



## Kieck

> Jim - this is old basic fact. -Boris


I'm with Jim on this one. You state it as "fact," Boris, but I've never heard such a thing.

HOW do their "immune systems" differ?

Isn't toxicity handled differently than through immune systems?

Are you really saying that if I took honey from honey bees in tropical areas and fed it to honey bees in temperate areas, the honey bees that received the honey would die because the HMF in the honey is higher than they can handle?



> . . . "concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42." -Boris


I don't think you're understanding this yet.

If I have a batch of Type 55 and another batch of Type 55, the HMF levels in those two batches are likely going to be quite different, especially if I handle them differently.

One batch of Type 55 may have a HMF concentration similar to a batch of Type 42, while another batch of Type 55 may have quite different HMF levels than the first batch of Type 55 or the batch of Type 42.

The difference is likely to be as great or greater WITHIN "types" as it is BETWEEN types.



> "There is evidence that high levels of HMF have injured bees." -Boris


I don't think any of us are questioning that statement, here. What we're trying to suggest to you is that you need to have each batch or truckload or container or shipment or whatever you wish to call it of HFCS checked if you're concerned.


----------



## Boris

Kieck,

Please read my previous response to you more carefully:
"1. The companies could at least provide the level range of HMF in HFCSs, but this information is also not available. "

Boris


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Please read my previous response to you more carefully:

Everyone is reading carefully, the problem here is that you
are saying things that are complete and utter nonsense to
people who buy and use HFCS by the tanker-truck load,
the drum, and other large quantities with which you are
apparently not familiar.

> "1. The companies could at least provide the level range of 
> HMF in HFCSs, but this information is also not available. "

Of course it is "not available", because the HMF level can _*change*_
depending upon how the beekeeper handles, stores and mixes
his HFCS, as Kieck pointed out.

Perhaps you are (over)reacting to second-hand information about
the batches of "bad" HFCS that ended up being sold to unsuspecting
beekeepers last winter. The problem was an isolated quality-control 
issue,and the very low price should have been a clue that something
was amiss, and that the HFCS was off-spec.


----------



## Boris

Jim,

Your statement below doesn't address the information that I'm looking for.
"Of course it is "not available", because the HMF level can change
depending upon how the beekeeper handles, stores and mixes
his HFCS."

I am looking for the initial level range of HMF at the moment of production of the syrup and before its sale. Of course I understand that this level may change while it is stored by beekeepers. 

Also, I think that the maximum level of HMF in HFCS should be regulated by USDA and should be available publicly.

Boris


----------



## Ian

>>Ian, 
please try to be more productive - show us your answer for this simple question: "concentration level of HMF in HFCS Type 55 and Type 42."

Do your own leg work, take a sample to your extensions office. In fact just to make things interesting, and well, relevant. Take a sample of new batch HFCS, 1yr old and 2yr old HFCS and bring us back the results.
Or perhaps your research would rather have me tell you what you would find,.?

>>Also you can contact Dr. Currie directly about his statement: "There is evidence that high levels of HMF have injured bees."


Boris

I have the utmost respect when talking about Dr. Currie and his extensive work on the honeybee. He has provided the industry with extensive knowledge and his work has benefited the industry tremendiously, especially our local extensions office here and the beekeepers who rely on their work.

I am not prepared to take his work out of context, as you are suggesting. But what I am prepared to say quite frankly, is that I don't know of any one int he beekeeping industry that would argue that high levels of HMF wouldn't harm honeybees fed in either spring or fall situations.

How is that point? You have pulled a quote form Dr. Curries work, (and Boris, your quoting Dr. Curries work, so you MUST provide a reference after that quote) that doesn't prove anything that you are saying about HFCS and its harm to the honeybees?
Your statement is just so silly, I don't know how to respond, rather than to redirect you to my previous post, focus, and try to understand the reasons why I am testing my old syrup, before I feed it back to them.

I don't know Boris, sound like your grasping for straws.

Would of been a more interesting discussion if you were getting in to the feed values between sucrose and HFCS. There is a lot of interesting discussion there.

In fact, I have just attended an Apiculture Symposium in relating to the Entomological Society big due up here, sat in on Dr. Currie's talk about honey bee feeds relating to their health. He was talking about the sugars available and the STUDDIES related to feeding each and every type. Now HFCS was shown to die off bees faster than sucrose in preparation for bee feeding. Perhaps you would rather re focus your attention to this discussion rather than trying to red flag HFCS out right, and in my mind foolishly.


----------



## Boris

Jan,

1. Our conversation without official data is useless. I have to wait for the USDA response. 
2. There is a link to Dr. Curries' statement in my article.

Boris


----------



## Ian

>>Our conversation without official data is useless

You figure?

Your making me search for the link to Dr. Curries quote in your article?
Maybe it would be quicker to Google it instead,
I would rather you site the quote in your next post, please.

Please show Dr.Currie a little more respect than that,


----------



## Ian

>>(and Boris, your quoting Dr. Curries work, so you MUST provide a reference after that quote)

Boris, provide that reference!


----------



## Joel

I would say the cause is beekeepers!


----------



## Ian

>> would say the cause is beekeepers!


The beekeepers are causing what exactly?


----------



## Boris

UPDATE: Information posted on the USDA website confirms my theory regarding the effect of stress on the immune system of bees. In my outline of a future article, I mention several factors that result in higher stress experienced by bees. USDA discusses two of these factors. It sites that "stresses include poor nutrition (due to apiary overcrowding, pollination of crops with low nutritional value, or pollen or nectar dearth) and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bees long distances for pollination. Stress could compromise the immune system of bees making colonies more susceptible to disease." http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=15325

My article is here:
http://www.beebehavior.com/weak_state_bee_colonies.php


----------



## jjgbee

*Fat Bees Skinney Bees*

Wow what a long thread. Way back post 80 or so the discussion was on research. In CA, beeks working with Joe Traynor donated two dollrs per hive to research. Did Joe, the grower or the beek put up the money, who cares. The money went to research. Every pollination job in the country should donate one dollar per hive to research. Some research last year indicated that it may be possible to out run varroa or severly affect it through a heavy nutrition program. Many large beeks here make their own patties. Most give better results than the major patty producers. One research project needed is an in depth analysis of every major pollen source in the USA. Fat Bees Skinney Bees is a work done in Australia that analizes every major pollen in Australia. Includes total protine, and amino acids in each pollen. They found one plant yielded large amounts of honey but the pollen was so poor that the bees would go down hill while on this great nectar source. When your bees are collecting pollen is it nutritional???? You must have Varroa under control by August 15 and start pollen subsitutes on Aug 15 to have strong young fat bees to survive winter. CCD my money is on imicloprid.


----------



## Kieck

> CCD my money is on imicloprid. -jjgbee


Why do you believe imidacloprid is the cause of CCD? What makes you believe it?


----------



## dickm

Australians are on the case with nutrition. In 2000 or so, they (Denis Andersen) did a study on a type of disappearing disease (Muck) that cleared up when they trapped the local pollen OUT of the hive and fed supplement.

Dickm


----------



## jjgbee

Kieck said:


> Why do you believe imidacloprid is the cause of CCD? What makes you believe it?


Erick Lane is a aquaintance of mine. Go to Lanesbees.com and read all his data. He seems like a very logical guy and would be worthy of debating the subject. Why won't the (experts) studying CCD return his calls? Why does the study group have funds to collect samples of honey and pollen but no funds to have them analysed?


----------



## Ian

No no, dont you back your statements up with a vaugely stated USDA statements.

>>"stresses include poor nutrition (due to apiary overcrowding, pollination of crops with low nutritional value, or pollen or nectar dearth) and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bees long distances for pollination. Stress could compromise the immune system of bees making colonies more susceptible to disease

That statement has nothing to do with the claims you have been boldly making here. 

Pulling snipps of statements dont prove exagerated statements.


Oh, and Boris,
provide Dr. Curries reference!


----------



## amandrea

*Well Boris,*

Your proposal does not address the couriosity of robbers staying away for 3 days. 
The fire department will show you a triangle with each side labeled heat, fuel and oxygen. They say take one of these away and you can not have a fire.
Seems to me it is a similar situation with CCD with one side labled Bees. Once they are gone the conditions creating the problem stops and the hive is safe to enter after three days. 
What could the presence of the bees be contributing to the condition killing them other than heat? Perhaps if a CCD hive were brought up to temperatures that would exist with the bees present a toxic condition could be found.


----------

