# Why knowingly catalyze a bee apocalypse?



## drmanhadan

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I believe playing the devil's advocate is important before committing oneself to any cause, despite being a beekeeper myself. I'm wondering _why_ the EPA continuously approves neonicotinoids despite implications that they are a major cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We cannot assume everyone in the agency is stupid or corrupt, especially when they are so concerned with the protection of the environment and wildlife.

What's yall's take on as to why the approval of the insecticide recurs?


----------



## sqkcrk

Because there is no direct evidence that neonics cause CCD? And nobody knows what catalyze means? There is no bee apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

Lack of caring and Greed.


----------



## WLC

drmanhadan:

There are a group of beekeepers, and friends, who have currently filed a legal challenge to the current EPA pesticide approval process.

Let's hope that they're successful.

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...epa-to-reevaluate-toxic-bee-killing-pesticide


----------



## jdmidwest

A catalyst is like an accelerator, activator, or some material that starts a larger reaction.


----------



## WLC

A flawed process, especially one that approves large numbers of pesticides, may as well be thought of as a catalyst.

The flaw isn't in the science.

The flaw in the EPA pesticide process has been identified as the individual managers who are each responsible for a pesticide product and it's approval.

They're the 'catalyst'.


----------



## drmanhadan

sqkcrk said:


> Because there is no direct evidence that neonics cause CCD? And nobody knows what catalyze means? There is no bee apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years.


So what's all the hype about? Are the studies linking CCD to neonicotinoids bull?


----------



## WLC

Neonics are known to suppress the Honeybee's immunity to viruses.

That's the problem.

A recent study by di Prisco, et al., has found the molecular 'smoking gun'.


----------



## sqkcrk

drmanhadan said:


> So what's all the hype about? Are the studies linking CCD to neonicotinoids bull?


CCD sells newspapers and magazines.


----------



## drmanhadan

CCD is affecting the big beeks though right? I mean feral numbers could go up, which is why the EPA wouldn't be as concerned, but the domesticated population must be suffering enough to cause major concern.


----------



## sqkcrk

You're new, aren't you?

Believe half of what you see and none of what you read. Not even here.


----------



## drmanhadan

sqkcrk said:


> You're new, aren't you?
> 
> Believe half of what you see and none of what you read. Not even here.


A couple years in with one suburban hive. Quite new, but isn't that just denial of CCD as a serious issue?


----------



## WLC

CCD seems to have largely burned itself out for now.

However, I still remember the Am target sequence I identified.

I would say for many, neonics are still a problem.


----------



## sqkcrk

Tell me what CCD is and what causes it.


----------



## drmanhadan

sqkcrk said:


> Tell me what CCD is and what causes it.


Haha I can't get into specifics, but I guess that's your point. Havent you had any personal experience/known someone who has suffered from CCD?


----------



## WLC

The consensus is that it's caused by a suppression of the Honeybee's immune system.

In the U.S., it's believed to be caused by a strain of IAPV.

I've tracked it down to Ago 2 knockdown by a sequence carried in the 'zero' strain of IAPV.

However, we now know that neonics can suppress the Honeybee's immunity to viruses.


----------



## sqkcrk

I have lost boucoop numbers of hives. Saying that CCD caused it I can't. Varroa/virus more likely. But maybe that is what CCD is. I don't know.


----------



## Frostmork

It's easier for people to find a flaw in reports and tests and discard it, rather than to do something about it.


----------



## psfred

There is not a direct cause and effect connection between the use of neonics and CCD, and I believe there is some discussion about the reality of CCD itself. After all, beekeepers lose hives all the time for a variety of reasons, and the introduction of mites and small hive beetles have caused the loss of a vast number of hives, sometimes in a way that is very difficult to pinpoint. PMS can take what appears to be a very healthy hive and covert it to a hive full of stores but empty of bees in early winter, and a poor pollen season in August can do much the same thing.

Feral hives seem to be increasing in my area, so the bees are adapting to mites, but we shall see what they do with small hive beetles as they are just showing up. However, some large operations are still reporting large losses (50% and up), but from what I've read, they seem to be the same ones fairly often and are large scale migratory keepers, at least the ones that show up in the news, and that's a different thing than what I do. Moving hives has to be stressful to the bees, and proper protein nutrition can be a real problem on things like almonds and blueberries, again this can cause serious losses in winter if the proper protein supplements are not given at the right time.

Now, the EPA approval procedure, if that's what you want to call it, for neonics was terrible, and they are being used as seed treatment to "enhance stand density" rather than being applied for control of a specific pest. I would not personally permit broadcast use of any pesticide as a preventive in the absence of a specific target -- I'm not a farmer, I don't make any money off them or the farm products, and they are POISONOUS, not innocuous substances. Bayer also appears to have been pretty sloppy in their environmental assessments and we have gotten some nasty surprises in terms of soil buildup and persistence that were "unanticipated" (meaning Bayer didn't look very closely). 

Peter


----------



## gmcharlie

Neonics have all but stopped random spraying of pesticides, Thats a GOOD thing, not bad. Of course neonics are bad for bees, so is too much water, or too much cold, or gasoline... The key is application. I live in the middle the most hevily Noenics in the world... My hives are in good shape.... No uneplained losees, and yeilds that are well withing normal.


----------



## drmanhadan

gmcharlie said:


> Neonics have all but stopped random spraying of pesticides, Thats a GOOD thing, not bad. Of course neonics are bad for bees, so is too much water, or too much cold, or gasoline... The key is application. I live in the middle the most hevily Noenics in the world... My hives are in good shape.... No uneplained losees, and yeilds that are well withing normal.


Wow


----------



## squarepeg

drmanhadan said:


> Wow


have you seen this one doc?

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f6-colony-collapse-revisited/


----------



## Lburou

I suspect the whole plight of pollinators in general is more complicated than a single insecticide or single vector. Be careful of the fallacy in reasoning called the 'fallacy of the single cause.'  

I do, however, advocate proper use of neonics according to the label.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> CCD seems to have largely burned itself out for now.


One reason "CCD" has burned itself out, was media fizz.

The coming bee apocalypse was hyped up to such proportions it could not be maintained.

Figures of 30%, 50%, and higher losses each year were bandied around, we were told we were on the edge of a crevasse, the impression was given that bees were on the brink of extinction. When public expectations were raised so high ( I hardly know any non beekeeper who did not think bees were about to go extinct), but the reality is that year after year bee numbers have been increasing, it becomes impossible to maintain the illusion.

Pesticides kill bees, yes. The reason the EPA continuously approves them is because pesticides are a fact of life in the modern world. The planet could not be fed without them, it's that simple. That neonicitiniods, used correctly, are more harmful to bees than the insecticides of the past, may yet turn out to be one of the biggest urban myths of the early 21st century.

Or, might not. But basing it's decisions on current main stream research not media hype, the EPA is doing what it believes is the best option. The recent banning of some use of neonicitiniods in Europe, was based primarily on public hysteria and pressure groups, rather than proper research.


----------



## gmcharlie

One might add that we will have proof one way or the other very shortly The EU has banned them so we should see european losses disappear.

What will probably happen is no real change, then they will claim its the Neonics still in the soil.

A quick look at teh map of applied pesticides compared to anual losses should show you answers real quick. Areas that have little to no farming should show up as refuges for bees, and areas like mine should be wastelands.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

The neonics make a convenient target. Unfortunately, science showing neonics are worse for bees than other pesticides isn't there. I _worry_ that if the populace rallies to ban the neonics one of the following will occur: 1) a substitute for the neonics will be found that is bad for bees too; 2) the population that thought they were saving bees by participating in the drive to ban neonics will become disappointed and lose interest in bee and other environmental issues; or 3) if the bans do work as advertised, victory will be declared despite numerous other issues effecting honey bees and native pollinators.

The planter dust issue needs to be solved, yesterday!

But I *think* the focus on neonics ignores the elephant in the room which I see as an increasing human population. And a lack of personal responsibility for demanding perfection at all costs in the products we buy. "but these flowers came from the local big box store - they're gorgeous - what do you mean they're bad for my bees?"


----------



## WLC

One of the issues that has come up with how the EPA tests and approves new pesticides is that Honeybees do not make an ideal proxy for native pollinators in pesticide testing.

It seems that Honeybees can detoxify pesticides more readily than other native pollinators, and as a result, while the application doses might not harm Honeybees, they may exceed the LD50 for other native bees/pollinators.

Strangely, in a recent study by di Prisco, et al., neonics resulted in a higher viral load than the organophosphates that were tested. So, there is evidence that neonics can be more harmful than another pesticide class.


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> One might add that we will have proof one way or the other very shortly The EU has banned them so we should see european losses disappear.


There's Legislation in the works in the US Congress to follow Europe's lead and put a 2 year ban on neonic in the US too.


----------



## gmcharlie

Thats going to be a huge problem, the data will be worthless, as they will go back to random spraying which kills more bees so our losses will be higher


----------



## squarepeg

like so many issues of this nature there are two sides or more with competing interests.

it's for these type problems and more that really need capable legislators.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

It is real easy to blame farmers for pesticide use. So maybe it just might be of interest to see figures on who actually uses a few pesticides.

2,4 D -Ag use is 19% of the total use in the US.
Carbaryl -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
Pendimethalin -Ag use is 54% of the total use in the US.
Trifluralin -Ag use is 75% of the total use in the US.
Malathion -Ag use is 0% of the total use in the US.
Roundup -Ag use is 90% of the total use in the US.

Soooo, if Ag uses are far from the total US use of pesticides who else uses them? The non Ag uses are split nearly dead equally between home owners and non Ag businesses or government. Home owner uses are primarily lawn and garden. The non Ag business and government uses range from golf courses to lawn care at business sites to railroad and public road right of ways, cities spraying mosquitos, etc.

You might notice I included roundup on this list and that is one case where most of the use is Ag use. Roundup is by far the safest chemical on this list and the most environmentally friendly chemical on this list. The surfactants in the roundup formulation are more toxic than the active ingredient glyphosate. If you do not know what a surfactant is think dishwashing liquid. Glyphosate is also, for practical purposes, instantly bound by soil particles thus preventing migration of this chemical. It is then rapidly degraded to carbon dioxide and phosphate fertilizer by the microbes in the soil. Thus there is zero concern about contamination of aquifers or streams unless you spray directly into the stream.

Anyone who thinks the US EPA is not doing a diligent job of protecting the consumer and environment from pesticides obviously has zero clue about what the pesticide registration process involves. Here is a link to a very abbreviated list of the registration requirements:

http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/regulating/data_requirements.htm

When I left the field in 1986 it was estimated to take about $100 million worth of lab studies to obtain a provisional registration for any new pesticide molecule. Once you have a provisional registration you can expect to spend at least $10 million per year for the life of the pesticide. That kind of expense buys a lot of lab studies. Many hundreds of them. It has not gotten cheaper since 1986. Also, periodically the EPA requires reregistration of all pesticides. During that reregistration process a fair number of original studies are thrown out by the agency and must be repeated because science and understanding of the environment has progressed since the original registration.

You are far, far more likely to suffer adverse health effects from pills you get from your doctor than from any pesticide exposure providing the label directions on that pesticide are followed. The potential fines and jail time for not following label directions are enough to keep the Ag users very honest. Homeowners on the other hand cheat all the time. Even bee keepers cheat. I see repeated talk in here about use of oxalic acid for instance. That is illegal in the US and could result in either massive fines or jail time or even both.

The neonic lawsuit against EPA was mentioned earlier. Anyone who knows the registration process and US law knows that this law suit is going no place including I would hope those who filed the suit. Such suits are filed fairly often and never win. So why do they get filed? Simple. There is no intent to win them. They are simply part of the propaganda needed to help with fund raising. They cost very little to file and are very effective at inducing people to donate lots of money.


----------



## drmanhadan

Refusing a problem is never the way to solve it


----------



## sqkcrk

Admitting that one has a problem is the first step towards addressing that problem. Misdiagnosis isn't something a Doctor aught to be doing, is it?

When a patient comes to you w/ a problem, what's the first step? Or maybe you aren't that kind of Doctor.


----------



## gmcharlie

It really makes me smile to see post like these. A year ago it was all negative and ban this and that... in a short time I have actually seen people standing up for common sense instead of jumping on the evil corporation bandwagon without really thinking it out. Makes me realize chicken little may get his butt kicked...


----------



## drmanhadan

Sqkcrk- its just a username, don't think much of it.

What is the issue? 
Do you find that my acceptance of CCD is ignorant?
Should the ban produce explicit results, we would have an improved direction for better beekeeping, and the beek community would gain the recognition it deserves. Understandably, the ban could have averse effects on US agriculture, so the situation must be considered in the scope of its range of consequences.
What's your take on the ban?


----------



## sqkcrk

I don't see you as any more ignorant than any other person who has been reading what the Media has been putting out there for consumption. Your green, that's all. Your Profile says you don't have any bees yet. So you don't know from keeping bees what to expect or hope for. Seems like it might be a bit early to be discussing this topic. But that doesn't mean it won't get discussed. You will learn something here.

I don't know what a ban will do for anyone. It hasn't gotten out of committee as far as I know. Chances are it won't go anywhere. What happens in Europe will be interesting.


----------



## drmanhadan

I've got a hive, and its a hell of a hive for education. I'm not gonna get any mites but Ive learned the on hand ins and outs of keeping, but admittedly Im not a major player in the field.
What do you think about the hype? Good or bad for not just the beeks, but the neonic sprayers considered as well?


----------



## sqkcrk

The attention we beekeepers have gotten these last years has been good for our pocketbooks.


----------



## squarepeg

drmanhadan said:


> What do you think about the hype? Good or bad for not just the beeks, but the neonic sprayers considered as well?




so what is your understanding of ccd? and how it relates to pesticides? what do you think about the hype?


----------



## squarepeg

sqkcrk said:


> The attention we beekeepers have gotten these last years has been good for our pocketbooks.


true that.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

CCD is a set of symptoms that as i think about them come down to a reduction of quality natural forage opportunities. Pesticides and the neonics are one contributing factor. I haven't read the di Prisco, et al study referenced by WLC so it may be that the neonics are worse (cause more harm) than we have so far concluded. But I think of far more importance is our attitude towards the natural world - humans don't know everything yet - and our best science sometimes gets it wrong.

I wish I had all the answers but I don't. Humility, taking the time to look at the motives for 'cide use, remembering that miticides are often used by beekeepers and that there often are competing motives, are a few of the things I try to keep in mind when discussing this topic.

Oh and @drmanhandan sqkcrk is an abbreviation of the name of Mark's apiary.


----------



## squarepeg

my apologies to you drmanhadan. here's what i think about the hype and how it has manifested itself on beesource;

it's complicated, but in my relatively short time on the forum there have been a number of contributors here putting forth the notion that ccd is caused by neonics like it was a proven fact or something, the reality is that it is not anywhere near that clear cut. some of those folks ended up getting banned, or just quit after the imformed members on the forum called them out on it.

even the scientists and politicians across the european union involved with getting the temporary ban on neonics there admitted that they had no clear evidence linking colony collapse in general, (which includes ccd, a specific type of colony collapse), and exposure to neonics.

environmental activists in europe whose political agenda was aimed at getting neonics banned, (mostly for reasons that had nothing to do with beekeeping), adopted the honey bee and ccd as their poster child. they were able to stir up enough public fury over the false premise that neonics causing the extinction of honeybees that the politicians caved in and put the ban in place. even though they admittedly didn't have the evidence that neonics caused ccd they adopted the two year ban anyway based on what they termed the 'precautionary principle'.

a similar public opinion campaign is now underway in the u.s. it takes the form of hokey magazine articles and sensationalized tv documentaries. if that is all you have been exposed to then your perception of the issue will be based on the effective spinning that has been done by those promoting this agenda. it's surprising how many of my honey customers have heard about this and ask me if the chemicals are hurting my bees.

to which i reply, 'we don't know for sure, the scientists haven't got it all figured out, but for some reason it's not happening as much now as it did, and it's looking like there are likely other problems involved besides the chemicals'.

no, i haven't seen ccd in my colonies and no, i don't anybody that has around where i live. 
only one beesource member that i can remember has reported ccd type losses several years back, but i don't think it's happened to him since.

we don't know dan. i'm not saying the neonics don't play a role. pesticides can and do cause problems for bees. but the smart money is on neonics are not the cause of ccd, and may not be be the primary cause of general colony collapse.

i hope you take the time to read what randy oliver had to say about this in the link i provided you above. he does a good job in describing what we think we know about the dangers and/or lack thereof when it comes to all pesticides including neonics.

my apology to you is because when i first read your posts, i thought that you may have been one of those pushing neonics cause ccd because of a political agenda. after searching through your previous posts i can see how that is not very likely. i regret jumping to that conclusion, and i hope this helps you with your quest to know more about it.


----------



## mdax

The EPA is more concerned with making sure that bayer/monsanto is happy than protecting the environment. I thought everyone already knew that...


----------



## Rusty Hills Farm

mdax said:


> The EPA is more concerned with making sure that bayer/monsanto is happy than protecting the environment. I thought everyone already knew that...


...er...*proof* would be nice. 



Rusty


----------



## jim lyon

I am subscribing to this thread primarily to compliment Andrew Dewey and Squarepeg on posts # 41 and 42. It encourages me when thoughtful people take the time to give us thoughtful posts. 
To the op: Listen and learn from all sides on this matter. Don't oversimplify what is a very complex issue. No one is "knowingly catalyzing a bee apocalypse". There is much that we know about bee health but also much we don't know. As a beekeeper who has lost thousands of hives to pesticide spray way back in the 1970's and 80's I have experienced massive bee losses through the irresponsible use of chemicals. I understand the needs for the current systemics that are widely used in the world. There is a need in agriculture to control pests and its tricky trying to kill bad insects without harming the beneficial ones. Are todays insecticides safer to honeybees than those used 30 years ago? YES! Are they a factor in what is defined as CCD? Or any bee losses for that matter? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one for sure. I do know, however, that many beekeepers have been able to keep strong thriving hives in areas where these newer chemicals are widely used while other beekeepers have struggled. So the answer is complicated. Beware of those who try to make the answer too simple.


----------



## Dave Burrup

I do not believe that neonics are the sole cause of our bee problems. There are some who do, and cite the evidence. There are a lot of lab tests that support the neonic/CCd connection, but real life studies that I have looked at do not. The biggest reason that I do not want neonics banned is my real life experiences with the pesticide that neonics replaced. I have walked fields sprayed with organophosphates, and found everything dead. Not a living vertebrate or invertebrate, nothing. These chemicals were frequently applied with airplanes and often ended up where they were not intended. Even if neonics are the problems some claim, they are many times better for the environment than the organophosphates. If the neonics are banned agriculture will have to go back to the old chemicals. The claim that we do not need the chemicals is made by people who know nothing about agriculture.
Dave


----------



## Broke-T

There have been several thoughtful answers given here and I would like to go at it from a different perspective. I have bees in Central MS because that is where I live. It is mostly pasture land and timber. Very little agrochemical exposure thankfully. Within 2 hours drive I can be in the MS Delta or the Black belt of the Tombigbee river where rowcrops are king and pesticide exposure is common. I have thought about moving my bees there in July and August for the soybean flow but have decides not to expose my bees. Howerver many do move there and ride that risk vs reward train. 

If you decide to move your bees onto someone elses property to profit from the risk they are taking by planting a crop and then try to tell them they cannot protect their investment in that crop by using the best pest management tools that is very hipocritical. 

In MS there is a group currently working together to try and address some of these issues. We have come up with a draft proposal to help increase dialoge between beekeepers, farmers and applicators that will hopefully decrease problems in the future.

Johnny


----------



## squarepeg

Broke-T said:


> In MS there is a group currently working together to try and address some of these issues. We have come up with a draft proposal to help increase dialoge between beekeepers, farmers and applicators that will hopefully decrease problems in the future.


:thumbsup:


----------



## WLC

Broke-T:

I wish the group success. I hope that they bring this kind of information along with them to show how both beekeeper and soybean grower can benefit: http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/soybeans/can-bees-build-soybean-yields


----------



## mdax

There are many articles pointing to ridiculous cross pollination between the EPA and big ag.

Here's one, there are quite a few available online
http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/01/9840/leaked-epa-memos-may-explain-massive-bee-die

it's really not new news
http://www.iatp.org/news/bayer-monsanto-dow-chemical-industry-given-private-access-to-epa


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

It's been said here that beekeeping is mainly local. No matter the advice you get you need to consider it within your geography. I see this issue as the same way as most on here formed their opinion on this issue from personal experience. When I first started beekeeping five years ago I had two hives abscond, one after the other. I swore that it was evidence of CCD. Why else would they leave brood and food behind? Now I believe the problem was a major varroa infestation. I have fixed that and I don't lose bees this way anymore. When I give talks or presentations I attribute nearly all of the CCD issue to varroa and the viruses they inject into the honeybees.

A few months ago I had an opportunity to sit beside a Market Manager with Syngenta on a two hour flight. When I told her I was a beekeeper she got a "deer in the headlights" look that I'll never forget but we had a good conversation and I learned a lot about the other side from her. In Europe the environmental activist are pushing the ban on neonics and not beekeepers. The governmental authorities gave into the general public outcry (stirred by the environmentalist) rather than look at studies or hard evidence. Further, in Europe the ferver is to the point where the executives of Syngenta are receiving death threats for continuing to keep neonics on the market. 

We don't get a lot right over here but on this issue I'm proud the US has taken a more deliberate and rational approach.


----------



## WLC

I'm proud that these beekeepers are standing up to the EPA along with their council, "...The Pollinator Stewardship Council (formerly, the National Pollinator Defense Fund), National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Honey Producers Association, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith are being represented in this case by the public interest law organization Earthjustice...."

So, U.S. beekeepers have filed an action against the EPA with the biggest environmental lawyers around. 

I think that some of you are living in a dream world.


----------



## squarepeg

Hokie Bee Daddy said:


> We don't get a lot right over here but on this issue I'm proud the US has taken a more deliberate and rational approach.


+1

i'm all for effective labeling protections. my hope is that politics don't end up trumping that rational approach here like it did in europe. from what i can see so far, the beekeeping community here (for the most part) is not allowing the fear of a 'bee apocalypse' drive the spin of radical environmentalism.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

Now there's a surprise - lawyers jump into a high profile, big $ case.


----------



## gmcharlie

mdax said:


> There are many articles pointing to ridiculous cross pollination between the EPA and big ag.
> 
> Here's one, there are quite a few available online
> http://www.prwatch.org/spin/2011/01/9840/leaked-epa-memos-may-explain-massive-bee-die
> 
> it's really not new news
> http://www.iatp.org/news/bayer-monsanto-dow-chemical-industry-given-private-access-to-epa



Totally ridiculous, false and misleading propaganda.

"big ag" feeds your butt.... without "big ag" you would have to fend for yourself. AND the EPA is the biggest pain in the backside to every company in the USA the extortion money and garbage they pull is ridiculous.

For some goofy do good-er to assert that its a cozy relationship is the dumbest thing I have seen in a cpl months.

Bret Adee again? Really... I think its time for some of us to file suit against HIM. he claims to represtent our interest, and not even close... Teachers won against the union... I think for the 150.00 filing fee here in IL, it would be money well spent to sue them.


----------



## WLC

Don't forget these folks: National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Honey Producers Association, the American Beekeeping Federation.

They've filed an action against a neonic as well.

Your own national organizations are suing the EPA.

So, who's interests do you represent here? Auld lang syne?


----------



## Oldtimer

A slightly different tack.

Can I ask the people who want to ban neonicitiniods what you propose as an alternative?

Let's hear a positive solution. If you have one......


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> A slightly different tack.
> Can I ask the people who want to ban neonicitiniods what you propose as an alternative?
> Let's hear a positive solution. If you have one......


We do have an obligation to eliminate products that are acting as environmental contaminants.

The, 'solution' as you put it is the EPA's problem. Beekeepers are suing them to change their pesticide approval process to better protect both native and managed pollinators.

In short, "It's not my job, man".


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> A slightly different tack.
> 
> Can I ask the people who want to ban neonicitiniods what you propose as an alternative?
> 
> Let's hear a positive solution. If you have one......


:applause:

a question i have asked for many times and have yet to get a response.

my biggest concern is that our system of government as wonderful as it is, is not infallible. common sense and rationality do not always prevail when issues get politicized. a people divided against themselves are weakened and have difficulty moving forward. the current healthcare debacle here in the u.s. is a prime example. this is what i meant in my earlier post regarding 'capable legislators'. elections have consequences.

like many big issues of our time, the 'plight' of the bees has been sensationalized by the (for the most part) liberal leaning media that is sympathetic to radical environmentalist causes.

as with other issues, i don't see this as an either/or proposition. within the hype there are legitimate concerns and it would be foolish to discount them across the board. on the other hand what makes more sense is a both/and approach in which the competing interests of all parties are balanced. not an easy thing to do because of the complexity of it, but even harder to do when battle lines get drawn in the sand.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> In short, "It's not my job, man".


"but hey man, make sure the shelves at the grocery store are stocked."


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC
>I would characterize the public outcry on Honeybee losses as a majority view.<

Your vocal majority at least in the west is restricted to small groups, mostly with an environmental bend. My experience, whether it is bees or the environment, the majority does not care. What gets their attention is the cost of living.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Someone might call you out as being a vocal minority, with right-wing extremist views.


within the beesource community it's pretty clear who is the vocal minority with extremist views.

and it's a shame, because the dialogue is stifled by extremists, on both sides.


----------



## johng

If I could pick one thing to remove from the world, Neonics, CCD, or Mites. It would be mites no questions about it. If that happened I think the other two would mysteriously disappear. JMHO I think it is just easier to point fingers at the big bad chemical companies.


----------



## drmanhadan

squarepeg said:


> so what is your understanding of ccd? and how it relates to pesticides? what do you think about the hype?


Personally, I've never seen the ramifications of CCD, and my reasoning for this was because I only have one hive that I take extra good care of and is very healthy (and unfortunately very hot). Also, my bees aren't being subjected to nearly the same degree of pesticides as in more rural areas, so I can't say off my own experiences how CCD is affecting beeks in my area.
Part of the reason I began to keep bees was I my concern with their well-being across the continent and I knew I could provide a substantial service to the species and still go about all the fun and interesting parts to beekeeping. If the hype got me onto the bandwagon to contribute to the beek community, I'd say its a boon for the beek world.
Still, what I know about CCD is all subjective and what I've read online. There is no single disease causing the collapses, but there are a collection of factors working against hives to cause their failure, and subsequently the failure of large beek businesses that rely on their honey crop for their livelihood. I'm blind into the inner workings of CCD because as I've said, I've had to read off of other people's accounts of failure, but any motion towards bolstering the honeybee populations in the country should be welcome.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> "It's not my job, man".


That's all you got?

You have absolutely no idea?

Drmanhadan. As an alternative to neonicitiniods is fundamental if they are to be banned, perhaps you must know?


----------



## WLC

"National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Honey Producers Association, and the American Beekeeping Federation."

These industry organizations can't be categorized as Environmentalist or Liberal.

Yet, they're the ones who have filed the action.

They certainly represent a majority of U.S. beekeepers.

So, who do you naysayers represent? Not me. Not U.S. beekeepers.


----------



## drmanhadan

Oldtimer said:


> Drmanhadan. As an alternative to neonicitiniods is fundamental if they are to be banned, perhaps you must know?


What's the question asking?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> That's all you got?
> You have absolutely no idea?
> Drmanhadan. As an alternative to neonicitiniods is fundamental if they are to be banned, perhaps you must know?


That's the same tired, old 'strawman' argument that keeps getting pulled out.

Once the EPA pesticide approval process is reformed to better protect both native and managed pollinators, we'll have an answer to the 'acceptable pesticide alternatives'. The process must change first.

Let's hope that the legal challenge to the EPA process by the major U.S. Beekeeping organizations is, in fact, successful.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> That's all you got? You have absolutely no idea?


Let's not get into it w/ each other when we could be exchanging ideas. The spiral is always downward. Let's not get trapped in old arguments. Okay?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> The process must change first.


Strawman.

You and Drmanhadan have no idea what to use as an alternative to neonicitiniods.

You guys need to put your thinking caps on, because if there is no alternative, you are wasting your time calling for a ban.


----------



## jim lyon

drmanhadan said:


> Personally, I've never seen the ramifications of CCD, and my reasoning for this was because I only have one hive that I take extra good care of and is very healthy (and unfortunately very hot). Also, my bees aren't being subjected to nearly the same degree of pesticides as in more rural areas, so I can't say off my own experiences how CCD is affecting beeks in my area.


You need to check out the labels at your local garden center to see how widespread the use of these products are in the beautiful lawns and gardens of suburbia. To make matters worse, no licensing is required for the millions of homeowners that purchase these products. Only the disclaimer to "read and follow all label directions carefully". You live in ground zero, scary huh?


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie:

Those beekeeping organizations do represent you. They've got plenty of 'real life experience'.

And, they've filed suit this December in California.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


----------



## drmanhadan

Oldtimer said:


> Strawman.
> 
> You and Drmanhadan have no idea what to use as an alternative to neonicitiniods.
> 
> You guys need to put your thinking caps on, because if there is no alternative, you are wasting your time calling for a ban.


What's wrong with finding the root of a problem? Is it pointless to search for an alternative?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> "National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Honey Producers Association, and the American Beekeeping Federation."
> 
> [snip]
> 
> They certainly represent a majority of U.S. beekeepers.


More *bad information* from WLC!  Here are the real numbers:

ABF: 1000 members
http://www.abfnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=37

AHPA: 400 members
http://www.ahpanet.com/?page=AboutUs

National Honey Bee Advisory Board
http://www.nhbab.com/members.html
composed of members from the AFB and AHPA.

So, we actually have two organizations with 1400 members _total _(by _their _count).

:gh:

.... 1400 members is a majority of US beekeepers? ..... :s :no:


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> "National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Honey Producers Association, and the American Beekeeping Federation."
> 
> Yet, they're the ones who have filed the action.


by 'action' you must be referring the petition to the epa to correct inadequacies to the labeling protections on certain pesticides. the epa readily acknowledged the problem and promptly took corrective action. 

good for the beekeeping organizations, good for the epa, good for beekeepers and the public at large.

to characterize that u.s. beekeepers en masse are suing the epa over neonics is, well, the kind of hyperbolic spin that seekers of the truth like dan need to be wary of.

i'm personally disappointed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into this useless tit for tat with you wlc.

"that's all i have to say about that" forrest forrest gump


----------



## Oldtimer

Sqkcrk, point taken.

However the reason neonicitiniods are being used is because at this time they are the best alternative.

Calling for a ban does not change that. If the argument is they should be just banned, But there is no alternative, the person advancing the argument should not be surprised that few are buying into it.


----------



## Oldtimer

drmanhadan said:


> What's wrong with finding the root of a problem? Is it pointless to search for an alternative?


Absolutely not, I'm in complete agreement with you. To ban neonicitiniods we must search for an alternative. You are correct.

What is the alternative?

Is there one?

This is fundamental to the whole argument.


----------



## WLC

Rader:

Can you name one single U.S. beekeeper who doesn't want the current EPA pesticide approval process reformed to better protect both native and managed pollinators?

Can't do it?

Because we all want it reformed.


----------



## Oldtimer

Why ask people questions, when if I ask you one, you just shrug your shoulders and say "not my job, man"

A sensible discussion requires both sides provide sensible input. At least, if that side wants to be taken seriously.

The history of the use of insecticides, is that as new and better ones are developed, the old ones are discarded. If / when there is a better alternative, neonicitiniods will be discarded, and chat site banter will not be required to achieve that.

And that has happened, and will happen, despite the claimed failings of the regulatory boards, which are mostly conspiracy theory.


----------



## WLC

OT:

If you want a sensible discussion, don't ask 'strawman' questions about what should be the replacement.

Once the EPA pesticide approval process is reformed to protect both native and managed pollinators, then we'll know which pesticides are available.

Frankly, it might not be a chemical, it could be a totally new technology, like RNAi.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Because we all want it reformed.


Why does this "reform" process require WLC to _make up_ 'facts'? :scratch: Why claim that those 3 organizations represent a majority of US beekeepers when they clearly do not?

:gh:


----------



## sqkcrk

Who does? Anybody?


----------



## WLC

Rader, name one beekeeper who doesn't want the EPA process reformed.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> OT:
> 
> If you want a sensible discussion, don't ask 'strawman' questions about what should be the replacement.


But the replacement is fundamental. A ban will not happen till there is a replacement.

Claiming there is something wrong with the EPA, and talking process, is just an attempt to sideline that fact.


----------



## WLC

OT:

If you were ask me which pesticide technology is most likely to replace neonicotinoid chemistry, I would say RNAi.

I've followed Monsanto's acquisition of some leading biotechnology companies, and some key scientists.

However, I don't have a crystal ball, and Monsanto is notoriously unpredictable.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK, well at least it's an answer.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> OK, well at least it's an answer.


Think of it as an informed opinion.


----------



## Oldtimer

I have no idea if you are informed.

What I can tell you, is genetic modification may be a way forward. But it will likely attract just as many or more detractors, as neonicitiniods. The public opinion problem will not go away.


----------



## WLC

GM crops are, well, already genetically modified.

Some might see the advantage of uncoated seeds, since their pesticide is already built in like Bt, as a clear improvement on coated seed technology.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

WLC said:


> In short, "It's not my job, man".


I walked away for a while and am late to the party but couldn't let this one go. This same person I met with Syngenta told me that neonics increase food yields by 15% by allowing complete germination and killing the nematodes that routinely feed on seed before it germinates. Let's say that was biased and knock that down to 10%. Ban neonics and the next year you have a 10% supply/demand imbalance. What will that mean? Higher prices on food. Higher prices on fuel (thanks to ethanol). In year 2 what will happen is 10% more land will be plowed up to meet the demand. That's 10% less bee habitat across the country and likely a 10% decline in the number of colonies out there. In an effort to "save the bees" the opposite will happen.

There are too many linkages in this world to sit back and say "It's not my job, man!".


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> GM crops are, well, already genetically modified.
> 
> Some might see the advantage of uncoated seeds, since their pesticide is already built in like Bt, as a clear improvement on coated seed technology.


Agree, possibly the majority will see it that way. But there will be, and are, detractors. In many cases the very same activists.


----------



## WLC

Hokie Bee Daddy said:


> I walked away for a while and am late to the party but couldn't let this one go. This same person I met with Syngenta told me that neonics increase food yields by 15% by allowing complete germination and killing the nematodes that routinely feed on seed before it germinates. Let's say that was biased and knock that down to 10%. Ban neonics and the next year you have a 10% supply/demand imbalance. What will that mean? Higher prices on food. Higher prices on fuel (thanks to ethanol). In year 2 what will happen is 10% more land will be plowed up to meet the demand. That's 10% less bee habitat across the country and likely a 10% decline in the number of colonies out there. In an effort to "save the bees" the opposite will happen.
> 
> There are too many linkages in this world to sit back and say "It's not my job, man!".


Talking to farmers about crop rotation and IPM isn't my job either. Nor is it the Syngenta reps job.

Although I have no problems suggesting planting pollinator friendly crop varieties with pollinator friendly field edges/margins and hedge rows.

That might just take up some of the 'yield' slack.


----------



## Oldtimer

But the thread is not about crop rotation. The issue was you were advancing an argument but did not consider it your job to support it or take it to a logical conclusion.

Anyhow, you since have, with a suggestion of genetic modification. Which is a viable option although likely just as controversial.


----------



## WLC

When it comes to the continuous use of various neonic coated seeds and Honeybee losses (aka CCD), then of course IPM, crop rotation, and sustainable permaculture, enter the argument.

Remember, you asked for the alternatives, not me.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

<<When it comes to the continuous use of various neonic coated seeds and Honeybee losses (aka CCD), then of course IPM, crop rotation, and sustainable permaculture, enter the argument.

The market will decide what alternatives, if any, are viable. The question is what will be the new costs (aka prices) and will the incremental benefits outweigh the incremental costs. Hopefully these impacts from the European experiment will be factored into any decision.


----------



## WLC

Yet, Charlie, they keep planting the same crops, over and over again, with the same set of neonic coats.

That's just greed. No real IPM in sight.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

WLC said:


> That's just greed. No real IPM in sight.


Greed? Do you believe that really? Why do you think they are being greedy?

They are just lowering their costs like every other farmer. Do you take opportunities to lower your costs and are you being "greedy" when you do?


----------



## WLC

It's just a business model.

And, continuously planting neonic coated seeds, year after year, is the issue at hand.

You can't claim the moral high ground with that.


----------



## Hokie Bee Daddy

Likewise they don't deserve to be ran through the dirt either and calling them "greedy" does that.

Farmers prices are set by the market and the market won't pay them more for using non-neonic coated seeds. They make what they make by lowering their cost. If they don't match every other competitor's cost structure they go out of business. It's capitalism.


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> And, continuously planting neonic coated seeds, year after year, is the issue at hand.


 And over here the farmers are going to be using more foliar sprays, which is a real worry, and lots more bees and other pollinators are going to be killed, not had any problems with the neonics, so hope the ban gets lifted, or they find something else as good.


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Keep in mind that WLC is a self proclaimed social activist.
> That means he puts a particular _spin _on everything he can to get everyone else riled up. As he has demonstrated multiple times, when the facts to support his issues aren't conveniently at hand, just make some up!
> :ws:


Well, let me throw you a bone then...

You're beekeepers. You've got some truly powerful insects at your disposal.

Yet, you settle for some high tech crop varieties that your bees won't even touch, or because of chemical issues, you're afraid to leave your hives near them.

Who talked you into that?

Maybe it's time to combine your Honeybees' strengths with some well matched crop varieties?


----------



## Oldtimer

Reminds me of the soya bean thread. Are you overthinking?

The thread topic is about knowingly catalysing a bee apocalypse. The OP went on to further define that to mean in his view, it's all about neonicitinoids. The general consensus since, put forth by more experienced beekeepers than the OP, has not been in agreement.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Reminds me of the soya bean thread. You are overthinking.
> The thread topic is about knowingly catalysing a bee apocalypse. The OP went on to further define that to mean in his view, it's all about neonicitiniods. The general consensus since, put forth by more experienced beekeepers than the OP, has not been in agreement.


Let me remind you again of how they're related. From Broke-T:

" I have thought about moving my bees there in July and August for the soybean flow but have decides not to expose my bees. "

I think you've missed at least one experienced beekeeper's opinion.

I'm not overthinking.


----------



## Oldtimer

Which is why I said it reminds me of your soya bean thread. 

A point of grammar, the term "general consensus", means "general consensus". It allows for the odd different opinion and did not miss it. The general consensus here has been clear.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Which is why I said it reminds me of your soya bean thread.


There are almost 2 million acres of soybeans in Mississippi. 900,000 of them are irrigated.

What did the Ancient Mariner say? "Nectar, nectar, everywhere, and not a drop to drink."


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> What did the Ancient Mariner say? "*Nectar, nectar*, everywhere, and not a drop to drink."


It's water water everywhere and does not change the general consensus.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Yet, Charlie, they keep planting the same crops, over and over again, with the same set of neonic coats.
> 
> That's just greed. No real IPM in sight.


You really have no clue.... Beans and corn are constantly rotated, around here also winter wheat, Horseradish and turnips get plowed under to work into the ground. Alfala, oats and other crops such as millet and Milo thrown in....


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie said:


> You really have no clue.... Beans and corn are constantly rotated, around here also winter wheat, Horseradish and turnips get plowed under to work into the ground. Alfala, oats and other crops such as millet and Milo thrown in....


Yes I do.

Even with double cropping, there'll always be a neonic coated seed going into the same ground. Year after year.


----------



## Broke-T

WLC, I think you mistook my view. I have several friends who have bees in agricultural areas and they do well. They carefully pick their locations and move bees when they are notified about a spraying comming up. But occasionally they get bees killed. They feel the reward of the honey they make is worth the risk of getting the occasional bee kill. They are not out telling the farmer he has no right to use the chemicals he needs to protect his crop. They need these farmers or they have no place to put bees. 

I choose to stay put for now because I have more than enough room to expand right where I am at. At some point that may change and I take the risk for the reward.

Johnny


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> Even with double cropping, there'll always be a neonic coated seed going into the same ground. Year after year.


well lets just take your tax dollars, and plant dafidils and dandylions....... then we can stop neonics, and randomly spray malithion..... lets use a crop duster so we don't crush the flowers.....


----------



## WLC

Broke-T:

My point really goes back to why beekeepers are suing to change the pesticide approval process.

The 'poetry' was just artistic license.

I really and truly do hope that Mississippi beekeepers and soybean farmers can work things out and team up before the Brazilians can.

There really is a race going on.


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie said:


> well lets just take your tax dollars, and plant dafidils and dandylions....... then we can stop neonics, and randomly spray malithion..... lets use a crop duster so we don't crush the flowers.....


Charlie:

Come on already. The process needs to be fixed. 

No one is going to be able to ban neonics in the U.S. .

But, I think that there's always something better on the horizon.

I really do think that it might be RNAi.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> My point really goes back to why beekeepers are suing to change the pesticide approval process.


well, that's slighty more accurate than creating the impression that u.s. beekeepers have united to sue the epa and get neonics banned, but still a bit of a stretch from the truth.

there is an appeal underway in california by these groups as to whether or not the field testing was adequate for epa approval for a single product, sulfoxaflor.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> well, that's slighty more accurate than creating the impression that u.s. beekeepers have united to sue the epa and get neonics banned, but still a bit of a stretch from the truth.
> there is an appeal underway in california by these groups as to whether or not the field testing was adequate for epa approval for a single product, sulfoxaflor.


squarepeg:

When in the entire history of U.S. beekeeping have U. S. beekeeping organizations ever filed suit against their own government?

The answer is never.

So, if anyone is implying that everything is going smoothly, it isn't.

Sulfoxaflor is a neonic. But, what's truly important, is that they're challenging the process by which it was approved.

Very smart.


----------



## Oldtimer

As I just said in another thread, I've seen a growing number of "facts" being invented lately. It is not good enough to shrug this off as "artistic licence". Not if one wants to remain credible. If a view cannot be presented honestly, it is not good enough to present.


----------



## WLC

What license are you referring to?


----------



## squarepeg

our whole system of government is based on challenge, nothing new here.

hey, if something's screwy i'm all for exposing and fixing it.

neither you nor i are privy to the details, hopefully the outcome of the case will be decided by the merits of the evidence. the good guys don't always wear white hats.

obviously you've already decided, i guess that disqualifies you from jury duty.


----------



## WLC

squrepeg:

I've already read through the filing.

In fact, I posted the link a while back.

I'm just astonished that more of you don't realize how pivotal this challenge really is in terms of the history of U.S. beekeeping.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, when you are the only one out on a limb, maybe the tree is more solid.


----------



## squarepeg

maybe, maybe not. for all i know it's all grasping for straws. but wait, that worked in the eu didn't it?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> Well, when you are the only one out on a limb, maybe the tree is more solid.


Funny thing is, I haven't heard anything about New Zealand beekeepers doing something similar.

I've heard about beekeepers in the EU. I've even heard about beekeepers in Canada.

Nothing about New Zealand beekeepers though.

Feeling left out are we? 

Poor Butterfly.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well thanks for your concern about not hearing from NZ beekeepers. You hear from me don't you?

But as to the hysteria that happened in the EU, sorry to disappoint but you will be unlikely to hear that from us down under. NZ beekeepers, like the ones in the US, have their reservations about pesticides. Agriculture is quite a large part of our economy so we are also fairly practical about what can and cannot be done, agriculture in the EU is (in the main) of lesser importance to them.

We use most of the same chemicals as the US, in a similar way. And I don't think you will be able to accuse our regulatory bodies of being corrupt. I really don't believe it of the US either, the reading I have done on your EPA shows good processes in place.


----------



## WLC

Buddy, French beekeepers were blocking highways and burning their deadouts in bonfires.

Here in the U.S., it's different.

Besides the major beekeeping organizations involved, I'm most impressed by Bret Adee.

The biggest beekeeper in the U.S. is showing his leadership.

Very cool, very collected, and very focused.


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> Buddy, French beekeepers were blocking highways and burning there deadouts in bonfires.


 While in the UK the commercial beekeepers and government were against the ban.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Buddy, French beekeepers were blocking highways and burning there deadouts in bonfires.


Which is why I referenced hysteria. 

Did they even know what killed their hives? Doubt it.


----------



## Oldtimer

beekuk said:


> While in the UK the commercial beekeepers and government were against the ban.


And an interesting thing since the concern about alternative pollinators, an English lobby group set up to try to save Bumblebees, also opposed the ban.


----------



## hilreal

Please read Randy Oliver's Scientific Beekeeping website or his articles in ABJ regarding CCD and neonics.


----------



## squarepeg

i know about academia and real life. i know a nexus when i see it.

sorry wlc, i just can't bring myself to sign your petition.

dan, as you can see there are differences of opinion on the subject, and there is a concerted effort by those with a political agenda to paint a picture. do your homework son, and develop your own informed view.


----------



## Michael Palmer

drmanhadan said:


> So what's all the hype about? Are the studies linking CCD to neonicotinoids bull?


I don't know if it's bull or not, but...

At the Long Island Bee Seminar in October, Jeff Pettis, head of the USDA Bee Lab in Beltsville, said he hasn't seen any CCD in a number of years. Neonics are still being used, and no CCD has been reported.


----------



## WLC

Yet, there were massive colony losses in Canada attributed to neonicotinoid pesticide use.

Health Canada even went so far as to call its use in agriculture 'unsustainable'.

I don't see the value of trying to link neonics to CCD, which U.S. scientists believe is caused by IAPV.

However, I do see the value of linking neonics to colony collapse/losses.

While CCD has been described as a specific set of symptoms by researchers, the public tends to apply the term CCD to colony losses in general.

I tend to agree with the public's definition, since CCD has come to mean colony losses because of common usage.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Yet, there were massive colony losses in Canada attributed to neonicotinoid pesticide use.


fact check: there were isolated losses attributed to inadequate control of planting dust.



WLC said:


> Health Canada even went so far as to call its use in agriculture 'unsustainable'.


so has randy oliver, among others. nothing new here, and the idea has to due with pesticide use in general, not just neonics.



WLC said:


> I don't see the value of trying to link neonics to CCD, which U.S. scientists believe is caused by IAPV.


:applause: 



WLC said:


> However, I do see the value of linking neonics to colony collapse/losses.


all factors should be on the table as suspect, but the data does not implicate neonics as a major one. the smart money is on the varroa/virus complex.



WLC said:


> While CCD has been described as a specific set of symptoms by researchers, the public tends to apply the term CCD to colony losses in general.
> 
> I tend to agree with the public's definition, since CCD has come to mean colony losses because of common usage.


gee, i wonder how the public came up with that definition? could it have anything to do with those having a political agenda flooding the media with half-truths to that effect?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Yet, there were massive colony losses in Canada attributed to neonicotinoid pesticide use.
> 
> Health Canada even went so far as to call its use in agriculture 'unsustainable'.


More _political spin_ from WLC.  Here is what Health Canada _actually _said:


> However, in spring 2013 with more typical weather patterns, we continued to receive a significant number of pollinator mortality reports from both corn and soybean growing regions of Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba. Consequently, we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable.For the 2014 planting season, we intend to implement additional protective measures for corn and soybean production, including:
> 
> 
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring the use of safer dust-reducing seed flow lubricants;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring adherence to safer seed planting practices;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> Requiring new pesticide and seed package labels with enhanced warnings; and,
> Requiring updated value information be provided to support the continued need for neonicotinoid treatment on up to 100% of the corn seed and 50% of the soybean seed.
> 
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_noi2013-01/noi2013-01-eng.php


Nowhere is Health Canada calling the use of neonicotinoids unsustainable. They are saying that _*planting practices*_ need to change. Many others, and as _squarepeg _pointed out, including Randy Oliver, agree.



:gh:


----------



## WLC

Health Canada has its work cut out for itself.

I would characterize the losses in Manitoba and Ontario as of great concern.

Manitoba broke the 40% mark in terms of colonies lost.

I most certainly wouldn't rule out environmental contamination by neonicotinoid pesticides. What occurred in Canada has gone far beyond 'talc dust'.

I always found it interesting that as soon as Randy writes a piece saying that pesticides aren't a major issue for colony losses, there seems to be yet another massive colony loss linked to neonicotinoids.

I think that the smart money is on the scientific consensus for what's causing colony losses, which is 'everything'.


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> all factors should be on the table as suspect





WLC said:


> I think that the smart money is on the scientific consensus for what's causing colony losses, which is 'everything'.


wadya know, looks like we may have found some common ground here wlc.

yes, everything is 'suspect' in the cause(s) for colonies losses until ruled in or ruled out. neonics should be on that list, and we can agree to disagree on just how high up on the list.

my humble investigation leads me to look at the 'hype' that generated the public outcry in europe as a the equivalent of chicken little proclaiming "the sky is falling". i'm betting that we may be savy enough to keep the same thing from happening here.


----------



## WLC

"my humble investigation leads me to look at the 'hype' that generated the public outcry in europe as a the equivalent of chicken little proclaiming "the sky is falling". i'm betting that we may be savy enough to keep the same thing from happening here. "

We can already see the U.S. pattern for responding to colony losses. While there's what's happening in the media, I think that the legal challenge to sulfoxaflor is a model for future courses of action.

I wouldn't be too critical of how the EU, or even Canada, are responding to their own 'pollinator crisis'.

One is a two year ban, and I've yet to hear about the details for Canada.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> We can already see the U.S. pattern for responding to colony losses. While there's what's happening in the media, I think that the legal challenge to sulfoxaflor is a model for future courses of action.


indeed. it's premature to make any more (or less) of this 'pattern' than is warranted at this point. the outcome will have ramifications either way. time will tell.


----------



## Barry

Snarky remarks - :no:


----------



## Barry

squarepeg said:


> i'm personally disappointed for allowing myself to get dragged once again into this useless tit for tat


If we could just refrain from replying to the obvious baits thrown around, I think we would have fewer pages in these threads with better content!


----------



## squarepeg

snarky perhaps, but nothing terribly uncivil or profane.

it's for the newbees that mistruths and half truths should not be left unchallenged.

try as we might, there are those of us including you barry who find themselves compelled to take up the torch on the issues that are close to our heart.

on balance you're doing a great job, no complaints here. 

'all is well that ends well'.


----------



## Barry

It's easier to get a thread back on track with an uncivil or profane post. Delete once and it's done. Much harder to deal with an underlaying "snarkiness" woven within many posts. Tends to leave one with a bad taste. My post wasn't directed at you. Simply used your words to make a point I've been wanting to make. You do a very good job of keeping cool. :thumbsup:


----------



## squarepeg

understood and thanks.


----------



## jim lyon

Perhaps this can be renamed. "Why knowingly catalyze a thread apocalypse".


----------



## TWall

This is always an emotional topic. The nature of beekeeping is such that beekeepers can not control all the land their bees forage on, regardless of where they are kept. 

I'm not sure who is 'greedy' in the whole pesticide usage chain. The stockholders of the manufacturer certainly want to see profits. The companies that market the products need to make money. The farmers that use the products are trying to make a profit. If many saw the capital investment, hours worked and risk associated with farming they would not do it. And then there is the consumer, how many are looking to pay more for thier food?

While I am no big supporter of the US EPA I'm not sure how the pesticide registration process can be changed to support all interested parties. Requiring more detailed studies is a great idea but, what does that do to the cost and timeline? When doing agricultural field studies one cropping cycle is typically one year. So, most studies will take at least two years to do. Studying envornmental fate adds more time. 

One stakeholder group my support some changes that other stakeholder groups do not support. This conflict will never go away.

Spending precious resources on 'problems' that turn out to be peripheral to the 'real' problem tends to prolong the 'crisis.'

Tom


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Ontario and Quebec have a large neonic problem. I have seen it first hand. It is mostly in the south of Ontario where the grow most of the corn/soybeans for Canada and exports. They formed a commitee to evaluate the situation but of the twenty something professionals there was only a handful of beekeepers and they were just outnumbered by the big ag folks. There is just way too much money changing hands in regards to corn production that the bureaucrats cant justify banning it. The CFIA has done this before (watch a documentary on youtube called Salmon Confidential), and you can see how basically the same thing is happening. Losses in Ontario is around 40 percent I believe, but that is the WHOLE of Ontario, where I am in the south, where they grow all the corn, there are very experienced beekeepers losing more then ninety percent. As far as the recommendations go by health canada, if you read through the lines they really arent doing anything. Farmers arent going to plant in the rain, beekeepers arent moving there hives eight hours north for a few weeks. Pioneer actually just announced that they are going to offer neonic free seed for next year. Hopefully that is a step in the right direction. The prices of hives, and nucs (we have no packages) has gone up 25 percent, 300 dollars for a single brood, 190 for a four frame nuc. Being a new beekeeper making normal learning mistakes, neonics, having a horrible honey year, and really wanting to succeed in this business I simply cannot afford to lose. I produced only 300lbs of honey from eight colonies, and still had to feed (I left them with lots). I am selling at about ten bucks for 500g. If my bees dont make the winter I am in trouble. So between rising prices, climate, pesticides we really are getting thrown over the barrel here in Ontario. I dont think we are making it up


----------



## Oldtimer

Some Canadian beekeepers are trying to follow the no mite treatment ideas from across the border, but they do not have the same bees. This is a large contributor to Canadian bee losses particularly for new beekeepers.

It's kind of the old story. My bees died, it must have been neonics. I just know it was.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Normally I would agree, but the larger commercial outfits that are getting into the news from mass losses are huge proponents of treating. Happily I monitored for varroa and the populations were almost non existent this year. My personal belief is there is something in the micro climate combined with the mono culture of corn that makes the pesticides more effective. I do think that there is a genetic bottleneck up here that dosent help, and getting bees from across the border would be great. There is currently a program going on in Canada where beekeepers can take samples and they are going to test for genetic diversity, that outcome of that study may open up the red tape a bit. I would love to try Michael Palmers bees, we go through the same winter, similar forage, I am sure they would work. That said we do have some great queen producers up here as well.


----------



## Oldtimer

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> Normally I would agree, but the larger commercial outfits that are getting into the news from mass losses are huge proponents of treating.


There are 2 stories about that. One, cannot be told, or it could, but there's reasons why nobody does.

The other, is that hearing about commercial beekeepers with 90% losses per year is old, we hear it every year, how come there's any bees left?


----------



## gmcharlie

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> Ontario and Quebec have a large neonic problem. I have seen it first hand. It is mostly in the south of Ontario where the grow most of the corn/soybeans for Canada and exports. where I am in the south, where they grow all the corn, there are very experienced beekeepers losing more then ninety percent.


How do you explain that?? the area i live in is and has dwarfed you guys in corn neonics, and little to no change here in losses?? certianly not a 50% difference? Is that a one season number or??
and does canola play into that? wondering if there is any data that shows increase in neonics compared to losses?? It seems interesting to me that some areas (Like downtown NY) seem to have huge neonics issues and areas with lots of neonics here stateside are not seeing issues?


----------



## mgolden

Wonder if the bees are foraging for pollen at the time of corn planting. Some seed invariably winds up on the ground during filling of the planter and when planter is lifted out of the ground at the headlands. And bees are removing neonics from the outside of the seed and bringing back to the hive????

How fast does it kill the insect??? I don't know if they would make it back to the hive?????


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Well firstly I do think it is climate related, thats why we never saw CCD in the same way. Just because no one knows exactly how it is affecting the bees, does not mean that it does not. Typically I can see cases all the time, bees twitching trying to sting the top cover, most of the ones that do die from the pesticide will have their proboscis sticking out. The seed coating gets into pollen as well as water sources. 

As far as the plants go, southern ontario doesnt produce AS much corn as Illinois, but they are similar as far as bushels to the acre goes. It is pretty much all corn and soybeans here (thats where the money is), so no canola, not even that much in livestock (save chicken farms).


----------



## gmcharlie

were 95% bean and corn....little to no fencerows, and the highest usages of neonics in the world. Not any reports like that around me that the bee inspectors or I am aware of.

Mites are huge, as is weather. Lots better since malithion...


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

If I had the answers as to why, I would be a richer man!


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> There are 2 stories about that. One, cannot be told, or it could, but there's reasons why nobody does.


ot, are you you referring to instances in which high levels of beekeeper introduced chemicals were found in collapsed hives, some of which may not be approved?

"The problem is that the beekeeper would have a hard time pinning the cause of the poor performance or slow death of his colonies after a particular pesticide exposure (or combination thereof), due to the stew of residues found in combs these days, _the main ingredients usually being the beekeeper-applied miticides_."

(italics mine)

from: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...ny-collapse-revisited/#pesticide-misuse-today


----------



## Oldtimer

Got it in one Squarepeg. :thumbsup:

But the main recently reported carnage happened when one of those chemicals became harder to get. 

A little credence was also added to some of the conclusions, by the fact that some commercial beekeepers were operating alongside each other in the same territories. One group suffered huge losses while the other suffered minimal losses. So now, one is suing everybody they think they might be able to pin a neonics related case on. But how do they explain the other, in the same area with minimal losses? The difference between the beekeepers points less at environment and more at management practises. But then, saying that would not help the court case.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks ot. perhaps that will give our young op a little food for thought.

i guess it's tough to say for sure with the lack of a common denominator for losses, but it would be hard to claim environmental causes if a neighboring operation with 'cleaner' management practices had better outcomes.


----------



## gmcharlie

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> If I had the answers as to why, I would be a richer man!


Agreed, but you post here and I assume also preach the gospel of no neonics, yet have no answer??? I don't understand that type of thinking at all.


----------



## gmcharlie

A post just from Jan in Bee L disagrees with the sad losses story Darn neonics and facts... I hate it when the facts don't match the narrative.:scratch:


The following table shows that beekeeping in Canada has risen in the past five years, not only the number of beekeepers (from 7000, up to 8500) but the value of the crop ($126,000,000 up to $172,000,000). This is a gain of over 36 percent. Colony count has increased by 80,000. If bees and beekeeping were declining, you would hardly expect these sorts of numbers.


Year	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Beekeepers	7,028	7,403	7,713	8,312	8,483
Colonies	592,120	620,291	637,920	690,037	672,094
Production of honey, total (pounds x 1,000)	70,362	81,672	79,824	90,759	75,488
Value of honey, total (dollars x 1,000)	126,253	144,197	150,691	174,490	172,661

Statistics Canada. Table 001-0007 - Production and value of honey, annual (number unless otherwise noted)


----------



## squarepeg

interesting commentary by peter borst on bee-l:

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=BEE-L;98ba6207.1401


----------



## gmcharlie

Your right Square. good reading Wish I was as eloquent


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> thanks ot. perhaps that will give our young op a little food for thought.
> 
> i guess it's tough to say for sure with the lack of a common denominator for losses, but it would be hard to claim environmental causes if a neighboring operation with 'cleaner' management practices had better outcomes.


So true, so very true. While many keep looking for subtle nuances in studies they are ignoring the immutable fact that some operations in similar environments have far fewer problems than others.


----------



## WLC

So, now we're going to ignore Health Canada's declaration that GMOs are unsustainable as well as the huge number of pesticide related colony losses in Canada where testing found neonicotinoid contamination?

Fortunately, Peter and Randy aren't real experts. So, pardon me if I ignore the usual disinformation coming from Bee-L.


----------



## squarepeg

same here gmc.

the one thing that agribusiness and commercial beekeeping have in common is that they are both profit driven. 'greed' has often been mentioned but i don't think that's fair, we all have to make a living.

i have no personal knowledge of any of any of the beekeepers involved in any legal actions nor the circumstances behind their losses. my heart goes out to anyone who is trying to make a living and gets the rug pulled out from underneath them.

the suggestion in the commentary linked above is that it is not as 'profitable' to have major losses as it used to be, because the government subsidies have dried up. while i am no expert on the subject it looks to me like it's going to be very difficult to prove high losses were caused by any one product or class of products in particular.

the good news is that if it is true that more dead bees are being sampled, the information gleaned from that sampling may advance our understanding of the subject.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks jim. 

wlc, couldn't help but notice that neither you nor i were nominated for any of the 'best of 2013' awards. perhaps we need to work on our 'people skills'?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> So, now we're going to ignore [HIGHLIGHT]Health Canada's declaration that GMOs are unsustainable [/HIGHLIGHT]as well as the huge number of pesticide related colony losses in Canada where testing found neonicotinoid contamination?


Wrong!  You are _making up_ 'facts' again. We have covered this ground before, but you are still dishing out misinformation. :no:

Here is the original thread:
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...p=1036583&highlight=canada+health#post1036583

 Here is what Health Canada _actually said:_


> However, in spring 2013 with more typical weather patterns, we continued to receive a significant number of pollinator mortality reports from both corn and soybean growing regions of Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba. Consequently, we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable.For the 2014 planting season, we intend to implement additional protective measures for corn and soybean production, including:
> 
> 
> 
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring the use of safer dust-reducing seed flow lubricants;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring adherence to safer seed planting practices;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> Requiring new pesticide and seed package labels with enhanced warnings; and,
> Requiring updated value information be provided to support the continued need for neonicotinoid treatment on up to 100% of the corn seed and 50% of the soybean seed.
> 
> 
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/...013-01-eng.php



Nowhere is HealthCanada calling the use of GMO/neonicotinoids unsustainable. They are saying that neonicotinoids _*planting practices*_ need to change.

:gh:


----------



## jim lyon

Profit is what you end up with when your income exceeds your expenses. Greed is when someone else is doing it.


----------



## WLC

This is from the Canadian Honey Council:

"The CHC strongly suggests that Integrated Pest Management procedures should actively be promoted by PMRA."

"As PMRA states in the Notice of intent: the use of neonicotinoids is unsustainable. "

"Working cooperatively with all players in the industry, and where economics and agronomics dictate, the Canadian Honey Council would like to see the implementation of integrated pest management procedures and a rapid and important reduction in the use of treated seed in corn and soy."

http://www.honeycouncil.ca/

Please don't tell me that the Canadian Honey Council is 'wrong' in asking for a reduction in the use of neonicotinoid treated seeds.

"There is a growing body of evidence that the neonicotinoid charge in the environment is building up with the years of continuous use and both the level of exposure and the impacts for the pollinators seem to be increasing particularly in corn and soy growing areas. For instance, there is an indication that bee intoxications caused by the water puddles, is an emergent problem."


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Kinda funny how WLC has morphed from the _claimed _Health Canada "decalaration" to the Canadian Honey Council "asking" for a reduction in the use of neonicotinoid treated seeds. :lpf: :lpf:




:gh:

... more spin! ... more spin!


----------



## WLC

When both a government agency (PMRA) and a beekeeping organization (CHC) in Canada are telling you that there's a problem with neonic coated seed technology, perhaps it's wise to take them seriously.

Or else, some folks are going to think that other members are trying to 'spin' the issue.

It's not me.


----------



## gmcharlie

given the rise in the number of colonies in Canada in the last years, maybe they should just sit down and shut up. cause whatever is already being done is working.


----------



## WLC

With an average winter colony loss rate of 28.6% reported for 2013 in Canada, they have a legitimate cause for concern:

http://capabees.org/content/uploads/2013/06/2013-CAPA-Statement-on-Colony-Losses-final.pdf

They lost over 205 thousand of 719 thousand colonies. Manitoba alone lost 46.4%!


----------



## gmcharlie

[edit] 28% in that far of north given the mite issues we have is freaking great. Do you realize how cold it is in Canada???
The numbers they put out themselves show STRONG growth in the number of hives, YOU just choose to ignore that.

The following table shows that beekeeping in Canada has risen in the past five years, not only the number of beekeepers (from 7000, up to 8500) but the value of the crop ($126,000,000 up to $172,000,000). This is a gain of over 36 percent. Colony count has increased by 80,000. If bees and beekeeping were declining, you would hardly expect these sorts of numbers.


Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Beekeepers 7,028 7,403 7,713 8,312 8,483
Colonies 592,120 620,291 637,920 690,037 672,094
Production of honey, total (pounds x 1,000) 70,362 81,672 79,824 90,759 75,488
Value of honey, total (dollars x 1,000) 126,253 144,197 150,691 174,490 172,661

Statistics Canada. Table 001-0007 - Production and value of honey, annual (number unless otherwise noted)


----------



## WLC

No Charlie, I didn't.

However, I did notice that the numbers don't account for colony losses.

So, Canada had 514 colonies after the 2013 winter losses.

They had to replace 158 thousand colonies to get to the 672 number, which doesn't match the 709 thousand number from CAPA, by the way.

Let me guess, you're getting your information from PLB on Bee-L.

You can find CAPA's Annual Colony Loss Reports here:

http://www.capabees.com/2013/06/24/capa-statement-on-honey-bees-losses-in-canada-2011/


----------



## gmcharlie

If you have 30% loss that means you have 70% just fine.. if you split just 1/2 of those you have a 10% increase every year. you want to focus on loss, totally forgetting the gains...because they don't fit your story line.


----------



## WLC

Charlie:

The CAPA numbers don't match the numbers reported by PLB.

Yes, the number of colonies being overwintered has risen. But, I would say that there's also the issue of winter colony losses as well.

As for my math skills, I still know enough about logistics to say that the only way to make up those losses in time for the main flow is to order new packages from New Zealand, Australia, or Chile. They aren't cheap either.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> As for my math skills, I still know enough about logistics to say that the only way to make up those losses in time for the main flow is to order new packages ....


Packages of bees were imported into Canada by the hundreds of thousands for _*decades *_before GMOs/neonics even existed:








The chart is from this document from the University of Manitoba: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/51149/2/91-2.pdf
(The curve drops off temporarily in 1988 when the import rules were changed.)

Since bees have historically been imported into Canada for many decades, the fact that they continue to be imported is not evidence of a crisis. :no:


:gh:


----------



## gmcharlie

Thats because those are not CAPA numbers there from an origination called Statistic Canada.... which gets its data from the goverment, not memebers.

AS for losses before the main flow, don't you follow the guidlines that a second year hive is better?? 

Actually Canadians typically have a full season flow, and its a moot point. good splits make honey.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Heres a pdf of the CAPA report on losses. http://capabees.org/content/uploads/2013/06/2013-CAPA-Statement-on-Colony-Losses-final.pdf

It is also a curious factor that colony registration is done in January, before you actually have colony losses. So as far as the Government is concerned I have eight hives that went into winter. On your registration there is no place for last years colony losses. I would actually be interested to find out how they come up with those numbers. I have never received a survey asking me. Shrug. 

As far as main flow goes in Ontario anyway usually we have a great season with bumper harvests of 250+ lbs of honey per hive. 100-150 is typically the normal. This year was not a great year and I averaged 50lbs per hive. 

Checked on them yesterday -10F without the windchill. All still alive! High Five!


----------



## gmcharlie

honey drunk,, I think the reality of them not asking losses is good. why bother? if the total number is climbing why dwell on what you lost? guys like WLC will only look at that number and claim the world is ending, when the reality is the end numbers are a climb. so beekeepers in CA have figured out how to manage losess and still make increases. its what we do with everything...
If I have chickens and the hawks get some, I have to manage to breed more to offset my loses. I can cry about hawks. but others in the world want them so I am out of luck....


----------



## WLC

Guys like me tend to wonder why we should accept PLB's Bee-L spin on the issue, especially after he cited a Syngenta sponsored study as a consensus opinion from 'Honeybee Experts' on colony losses.

The numbers don't match up. That's the point I'm making.

Beware of the source.

The scientific consensus, as per the USDA, is that pesticides are a contributing factor to colony losses, and that does include neonicotinoid pesticides.

To say anything else is a subjective 'fringe' belief.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Fortunately, Peter and Randy aren't real experts. So, pardon me if I ignore the usual disinformation coming from Bee-L.



this statement is so far past ridiculous it defies an answer. You live in NYC with a cpl hives..... Randy makes his LIVING with bees and kills more hives in the name of research than you will ever own........


The numbers don't match because there from 2 different sources, and you only want one outcome.......

Peter's Data was posted by the Canadian government. which is why we DO accept his information and not yours.


----------



## WLC

Can we dispense with the 'gloves'?

Once Randy published yet another one of his pro-neonicotinoid rants on 'The DailyCaller', he not only identified his own right wing extremist affiliations, he also published on a known 'Junk Science' site that also publishes material questioning 'Global Warming' and the link between lung cancer and smoking.

Your 'expert' is a known 'Merchant of Doubt'.

I'll get my information from actual experts if you don't mind.


----------



## jfb58

Questioning 'Global Warming' does not discredit one in the minds of many--especially this week in parts of the country, or last week in the Antarctic region when "experts" were stuck in sea ice.


----------



## WLC

I'll listen to the USDA, Health Canada, and the EU commission when it comes to neonics.

Frankly, I'll also support the position of the major beekeeping organizations suing the EPA over the approval of a new neonic.

Who do you guys think that you're representing?

Not the consensus, that's for sure.


----------



## gmcharlie

your wrong, WLC you tout yourself and your ILK as right, and any conservitive or person with another opinion as wrong. there is nothing wrong with a right wing view. what really off kilter is your left wing view. The view from downtown NYC is not the real world. In fact you would starve to death in less than a month were it not for us out here. Odds are your eating honey made by Randy more than your own.

Get off your high horse and come on out to the real world.... I realize you think neonic planters dust converts us all to right wing zombies, but rest assured we have a few left handed loonies here and they do okay as long as the welfare checks keep coming.


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> Your 'expert' is a known 'Merchant of Doubt'.


 I like his website, Scientific beekeeping, and Randy is also very helpful, a good honest scientist and beekeeper, who really knows his stuff.


----------



## gmcharlie

I should apologize to readers of this thread, I have stooped to the level of a name caller in defending the reputations of Randy and Peter. for those of you out there, look for yourself.
And back to the topic. when Hive counts and honey production have been rising steadily since the introduction of varoa mites, its real hard to get on a bandwagon that claims neonics are the cause, of a apocoylpse
I live in the middle of the heaviest concentrations in the world. They are used in every field around me.... and I invite anyone to stop by and take a look at health hives (not today its showing and cold)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Frankly, I'll also support the position of the major beekeeping organizations suing the EPA over the approval of a new neonic.


We have covered this before ...
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...lypse&p=1036155&highlight=members#post1036155
It is actually two groups with 1400 members _total_. Hardly "major" beekeeping groups.












WLC said:


> I'll listen to the USDA, Health Canada, and the EU commission when it comes to neonics.


And you have repeatedly misrepresented the statements of Health Canada regarding neonics. Details in post #164 of this thread.










Your suggestion that the USDA has made statements opposing neonics is a new one. How about some details? :scratch:


:gh:


----------



## WLC

Rader:

Health Canada has stated that neonicotinoid coated seeds were unsustainable, and DuPont/Pioneer is offering Canadian farmers UNCOATED seeds in response to the 'neonic crisis'. They're not taking Monsanto's 'stonewall' approach to the problem. Smart.

We need to recognize who the real experts/authorities are when it comes to the issues at hand.

Stop misrepresenting mere beekeepers as experts on the issues. They're not.


----------



## gmcharlie

this just in "Canadian Farmers who receive uncoated seeds from health Canada will get 10% of there next tank of Malathion"


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Does that mean WLC can't find any _actual references_ where the USDA has made statements disparaging neonics? :s :lpf:










:gh:

Click the link in my post #187 above to read what Health Canada _actually _said, on _their _website.


----------



## WLC

Rader:

Anyone can google it for themselves so as not to be steered to away from the 'Unsustainable' statement made by the PMRA.

http://www.grainews.ca/news/farm-use-of-neonics-not-sustainable-health-canada/1002594598/


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> We need to recognize who the real experts/authorities are when it comes to the issues at hand.


 The beekeepers, especially scientific ones, like Randy, yes.


----------



## WLC

I'm not wasting my time chasing the 'consensus' statement from the USDA on colony losses.

You've lost the neonic battle in all of Europe. You're losing in Canada.

And now, the major U.S. beekeeping organizations in the U.S. are suing the EPA.

Let's not forget the new Honeybee warning labels, or the pollinator protection act.

Sorry chums, you've already lost.  :applause:


----------



## WLC

beekuk said:


> The beekeepers, especially scientific ones, like Randy, yes.


What's his institutional affiliations? Monsanto and Bayer? :lpf:


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

gmcharlie said:


> honey drunk,, I think the reality of them not asking losses is good. why bother? if the total number is climbing why dwell on what you lost? guys like WLC will only look at that number and claim the world is ending, when the reality is the end numbers are a climb. so beekeepers in CA have figured out how to manage losess and still make increases. its what we do with everything...
> If I have chickens and the hawks get some, I have to manage to breed more to offset my loses. I can cry about hawks. but others in the world want them so I am out of luck....


Well of the beekeepers that reported neonic losses, they sent in regular samples to get tested. Of those tested 70% were positive for neonics. Now that number is not absolutely face value, 20% of those were from non-neonic losses that died from other causes (mites, starvation, etc). So OF the ones that came from neonic collapsed yards 90% of the bees were positive. Now these are the proactive beekeepers, and does not include the ones (like myself) that didnt send in samples (I was new). A few expert beekeepers (Tibor Szabo comes to mind) taught me to identify neonic affects on bees. I have a few short clips of a bee dying from classic pesticide poisoning. 

Now as far as increases go, lets put it this way. If you are a 1000 colony commercial guy, and you lose most of your hives how can you expect to profitably recover from that? It would take years, and you still have to pay the bills.

Because of these losses prices of replacement bees have gone up dramatically (25% since last year). 

Single Brood Colony - 300 (was 250 last year)
4 frame Nucleus Colony - 190 (was 155 last year)
3 frame Nucleus Colony - 150 (yes they are selling three frame nucs just to try and replace stock)

Now you want scientists evidence? Tibor Szabo Sr is a leading bee scientist (now retired), and published hundreds of studies and articles in ABJ and BC which is referenced by many of nowadays leading honeybee scientists (including Randy Oliver).


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC. Neonicitinoids have been used widely in the UK until the recent ban. Please explain this statement :-



mike bispham said:


> as far as I know CCD isn't something we suffer from in the UK. It doesn't come up.
> 
> Mike (UK)


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Stop misrepresenting mere beekeepers as experts on the issues. They're not.


Then why keep arguing that a beekeeper group who is suing shows you are right?

The two arguments are contradictory.


----------



## WLC

OT:

I thought neonics were banned all over the EU?

The ban went into effect this past December.

So, it's a moot point.


----------



## Barry

Here in this thread is the prime example when simply not replying is very appropriate.


----------



## Oldtimer

No you missed my point. Please re read post #196, you will see the point was the lack of any colony collapse disorder in the UK, despite the use of neonicitinoids.

If anything is moot, being unable to explain that, would make all your other arguments moot.

EDIT - Posted before I saw your post Barry, I was not saying you missed the point, I meant WLC did.


----------



## WLC

Have there been any pesticide related bee kills in the U.K. ?

Neonics and CCD is yet another strawman argument. Environmental contamination by neonics is the issue.

It's contaminating the soil and the water. And, by the way, it can kill pollinators, both managed and native, along the way.

So, did you have an actual point to make?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, I think you just made it for me.


----------



## WLC

Health Canada is concerned that neonicotinoids have contaminated the soil and water where they're being used.

I, for one, don't find issues related to environmental toxicology to be trivial matters.

Suppose they do find neonicotinoid environmental contamination in Canada?

Do you know what the half life can be in certain soil types? Decades.


----------



## Oldtimer

Emphasis Suppose.

So once pushed, your fall back position is that you do not find environmental toxicology to be a trivial matter, and that pesticides in general can kill pollinators.

As there is unlikely to be anyone else here who would disagree with that, all of a sudden we seem to all be on the same page LOL. 

So what point all the arguing LOL


----------



## WLC

Since you brought up the U.K. ...

Goulson (2013) reports that an EPA study found that Clothidinin showed negligible dissipation (after 25 months) in Silty clay loam in Saskatchewan, Canada.

In plain English, that means that it doesn't have a measurable half life.

All the clothidinin that you put into the soil stays there.

So, after ten years, you'll have ten years of clothiadinin in the soil.

That's the scale of the environmental contamination I'm referring to.

It's not funny.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'll support getting rid of pesticides with a very long residual period. The main reason they got rid of DDT.

But you've been arguing about neonicitinoids generally. Some of them have a very short half life. Which would make those ones pretty desirable.


----------



## WLC

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to change away from systemics.

When Pioneer willingly offers to supply farmers with uncoated seeds, without putting up a fight, you have to wonder what do the folks at Health Canada and Pioneer know that we don't?

Until the environmental toxicology reports surface, we're still in the dark.

However, I might start poking around to see just how much silty clay loam there might be in Canada.


----------



## WLC

At a recent conference in Las Vegas, I got the whole table talking about bees, etc. .

It's a real ice breaker.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> *Maybe*, just *maybe*, it's time to change away from systemics.


Emphasis *maybe*. As it's your own words and argument. 




WLC said:


> When Pioneer willingly offers to supply farmers with uncoated seeds, without putting up a fight, you have to wonder what do the folks at Health Canada and Pioneer know that we don't?


You are a big fan of the financial incentive they had to offer to use tank loads of malathion instead then?


----------



## WLC

That's another strawman argument. That they're going to replace neonics with THE BOGEYMAN. Booo!


----------



## beekuk

WLC said:


> Have there been any pesticide related bee kills in the U.K. ?


 Not with regards to neonicotinoid seed dressings that i am aware of, or any of the other commercial beekeepers i know, including the two biggest in the UK, most in fact were against the ban, especially as it will more than likely (it will) lead to a return to the use of more foliar sprays (like Hostathion) which have caused large bee kills in the past. 

All myself and other commercial beekeepers i know of here had problems with is the colonies building up very fast and strong on OSR (Canola) and going into swarming mode, as normal, and no long term effects or bad wintering ect.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> That's another strawman argument. That they're going to replace neonics with THE BOGEYMAN. Booo!


Strawman. LOL. 

Saying that them having to offer financial incentives to farmers to use *tank loads of malathion* if they use uncoated seeds is a strawman argument, says rather a lot about your overall understanding / view.

You are on the get rid of neonics never mind the consequences bandwagon.


----------



## squarepeg

Barry said:


> Here in this thread is the prime example when simply not replying is very appropriate.


kinda like groundhog day with bill murray?


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> At a recent conference in Las Vegas, I got the whole table talking about bees, etc. .
> 
> It's a real ice breaker.


Am I the only one having difficulty conjuring up a mental image of this?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Perhaps the ... performers ... were wearing _Bee-strings_!  :lpf:


----------



## WLC

jim lyon said:


> Am I the only one having difficulty conjuring up a mental image of this?


One of the attendee's has a daughter that works at the Harvard School of Public Health and knows Alex Lu.

That's how part of the conversation got going. Remember Dr. Lu, the guy that Randy can't stand?


----------



## gmcharlie

I can tell you exactly what the guys at Pioneer will tell you, "if you want to go back to costly spraying, we will sell you anything you want." I happen to know a few of them

Honey drunk, your missing the point, sure we cry when someone looses 100 hives. but get over it. besides being a partial issue of the beek for keeping all his stuff in one spot and not knowing whats going on, how and why is it worse than a guy with 2 losing both?? the answer is .... its not. but every year thousands of hives die, and thousands more split. in Canada case (and pretty much everywhere) its not a problem Losses are made up. it happens in EVERY life form... every day for millons of years.

And to the 70% contain Neonics. It a foolish statement dreamed up by Lawyers and guys from NYC...... every one of those hives also contained honey, and wax, and nails...hardly proof of causation.
What any real problem solver will tell you is we need samples from the living hives as well as the deads. The key is whats the DIFFERENCE between good and bad? thats how you solve problems. I have several awards and plaques on the wall from problem solving..... its how I see past the garbage thats spewed. I live in it... I would bet 100% of my hives have been exposed. 
I also have heard that 90% of the dollar bills contain trace amounts of cocaine.... but its not the issue. 
We have to get past the finger pointing on Neonics. its a total red hearing........ I lose a Dang lot of hives to mites.... lets get teh EU to ban them....


----------



## WLC

One of the consequences of beekeeping is that Honeybees are also an indicator species. If there's a contamination problem, your bees will most likely either test positive or become affected.

I don't think that it's acceptable to make light of a potential environmental catastrophe in someone else's country.

We don't know how bad it is yet. Unfortunately, one of the consequences could be that you can't keep bees near these contaminated areas for a very long period of time.

Health Canada is saying that the current practice is unsustainable. While I don't know exactly why they made that statement, I've never heard that kind of language from a government agency anywhere.

It's definitely a very serious situation.

Even Canada's National Farmers Union wants the neonics pulled:

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/12/18/national-farmers-union-joins-fight-to-protect-bees/


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

I think asking for a ban unfortunately has put the onus on the beekeepers to come up with proof. We ALL know how questionable bee related studies can be, half these forums are filled with it. Heres the facts, Italy banned them, populations are going up. Cause and effect. We may not understand why, and frankly I dont think we have to... its like asking why the universe was created, no one knows, probably never will, lots of theories about it, doesn't change the fact its here.

As to the 90% (you did read that right?) they did come out and take lots of samples. 

Perhaps neonics just give mites spidey senses


----------



## WLC

Don't fall for the same old strawman argument that you have to prove cause and effect. You don't.

You just have to prove translocation in the case of a pesticide bee kill.

If a pesticide gets into a hive, it's proof of environmental contamination.

That's what I've learned from the Italian studies.

Frankly, an agency veterinarian made the determination in Italy that lead to the neonic coated maize seed ban.

Bans can happen by agency determination, or even by provincial authority in Canada.


----------



## Oldtimer

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> Heres the facts, Italy banned them, populations are going up. Cause and effect.


Here's another fact. New Zealand didn't ban them, populations are going up.

Cause and effect?

And WLC. You just have to prove translocation? A poor argument because my hives are probably contaminated with 1/2 the chemicals made by man. We supposed to ban them all? If that's your argument, sorry for you but what you want will not work out in practise.


----------



## WLC

Well, the ban certainly worked in Italy.

I'm wondering what the overwintering numbers are going to look like for 2013/2014 in Canada.


----------



## Oldtimer

And the non ban certainly worked in New Zealand.


----------



## cedarecho

As a new beekeeper (first hives this spring) I have no way of adding information to this thread, but i am thirsting for knowledge. What I can say is the first posts made me think, and opened my eyes. If you would have asked for my opinion on this two hours ago it would have been very one sided. This thread has forced me to do more research so that I can be informed. Thank you for all of the information.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Oldtimer said:


> And the non ban certainly worked in New Zealand.


Oldtimer, believe me, we beekeepers here in Italy and Germany are not dumb. We see what happens out there in the apiaries with our very own eyes. Maybe that is not scientific, and of course one's own experience can mislead you. But certainly we can see the effects of the use of neonics.

Europe is a bit special, because everything is very much more crowded and closer to each other. We have a high density of bee colonies, a high density of agricultural fields and no wilderness at all in between. That differs from other countries. I have been travelling the US for three times and been in California, Texas, New Mexico and New York State (Appalachian Trail). Been living downunder in good ol Oz for some time. The differences between those countries concerning the landscapes and climate and bees are huge. 

Here in Europe we certainly have a different situation, because we do not have the alternative nectar and pollen sources as others have. No wilderness. We largely depend on agricultural crops to feed our bees on. When the maize/corn flowers it is almost the exclusively single pollen source during that time. 

Bees are not dumb, they sort of sense poisened stuff and try to avoid poisoned fields - if they can. If they are forced to or too attracted to it, you will see the effects.

The crowded landscape also leads to a much more contaminated water. You can detect Imidacloprid in almost all surface waters in the lowlands of Germany and Netherland. Lakes, ponds, ground water, small streams. Even in the drinking water that runs out of the tap at my home Imidacloprid is positively tested. With every cup of coffee and tea I drink Imidacloprid. Of course only in very low dosages - but hey, it is there. It is spread throughout the landscape.

To shorten it: we have our own eyes and what we see we are able to identify. Of course I can't and I do not speak for all beekeepers here. But more and more people cannot but see what is going on. The truth always wins in the long run, so time is working for those who work hard to improve the situation for bees. 

This stuff does, what it is supposed to: Chemicals plus nature. Disoriented and diseased. This is what the label said and this is what it does. (Nature = diseases. Diseases that will come after the chemicals weakened the organisms.)


----------



## WLC

Berhard:

Italian scientists aren't dumb either.

Di Prisco, et al., found a link between neonics and increased DWV loads in bees.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/12/neonicotinoids-let-virus-thrive-bees/

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18466.short

They found molecular evidence for how some common neonicotinoids can suppress Honeybee immunity via the Toll pathway.

The evidence just keeps piling up. Despite what's coming from the naysayers.


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks Bernhard. I consider you a balanced guy so value your opinion.

But tell me. You draw attention to being able to see the effects of neonicitinoid insecticides but did not mention non neonicitinoid insecticides. Have you found the non neonicitinoid insecticides are not harmful to bees?


----------



## jim lyon

We American beekeepers are not dumb either. No one in this discussion has attempted to account for the well documented fact that beekeepers running bees in similar conditions surrounded by crops treated with systemics have such widely differing results. The only variables, as I see it, are management practices. Its a fact that the most widely found pesticides found in beekeepers hives are those put there by beekeepers themselves. Who here can say if fluvalinate or coumaphous or amitraz or even thymol were sold by one of the large agri-chemical companies for use in crops that there wouldnt be absolute outrage at these established facts. Might the beekeeper be his own worst enemy? Could it be that this is more of a political cause? Are beekeepers innocent victims, are they a pawn in the big game, or are they just another special interest group. Points to ponder.


----------



## Oldtimer

jim lyon said:


> No one in this discussion has attempted to account for the well documented fact that beekeepers running bees in similar conditions surrounded by crops treated with systemics have such widely differing results.


That would be the elephant in the room that the naysayers try to pretend is not there.


----------



## cg3

Tim Ives reports that testing found zero pesticides in his hives.


----------



## j.kuder

maybe bee populations are up because people are trying harder to keep their bees alive and to supply the increased demand for more bees to take advantage of increasing prices. that said as far as i'm concerned poison is poison it may take longer to affect different species or a larger dose but eventully i believe there will be an effect. i was exposed to low levels of carbon monoxide over a 2 year period it thicken my blood and caused clotts. pesticides are not selective and just because the word pest is in the word does not mean it will only kill pests. so be very careful using poison and protecting the use of poison.


----------



## gmcharlie

Of course neonicitoids are poisens. the reality is some sorts of insecticides are going to be used. From Mosquito sprays to Grasshoppers and nematoades. So far here in the midwest sead coated neonics have been a huge help. pest control is at an all time high. non target species are faring much better. Butterflys are returning, bees are thicker than anytime in the last 20 years. and coup sprayers can be bought cheap.....

Canada has a 36% increase in honey and bees, since noenics, seems to me thats as much cause and effect as your Italy story, why do you choose to see one and not the other?? Politics pure and simple... no checks involved one way.


----------



## j.kuder

i saw no monarch butterflys none this past fall. the whole reason poisons are used on field crops is so they can squeeze every last penny out of the soil. they don't care about feeding the world it all comes down to profits. i don't buy the nobel cause that they have to feed the world because it is profit driven. how long did they maintain DDT was safe and how about smoking tabacco if there is profit involved i believe they will lie every time and keep it up as long as they can.


----------



## gmcharlie

J you have a very low opinion of farmers, I know its mistaken, but you will probably never bee convinced. No point in arguing.
95% of the farmers I know are stewards of the land, and do more to continue its maintenance than any of the city slickers can even fathom. Most of them try to pass the land down to kids and grand kids.
up until this point this has been a civil discussion about varying points of view. lets not try to turn it into a trash fest.


----------



## TWall

What is a bigger impact on monarch buttflies would be the loss of milkweed as there is less idle ground around fields for them to grow.

Why do you feel farmers are greedy? They have familes to support, bills to pay, etc. Why shouldn't they try to produce as much as they can?

Tom


----------



## j.kuder

i didn't used to feel this way untill 1998 my farm got oversprayed with weed killer and pesticide by the corporate farming outfit that rented the 200 acres across the rd. from me and i aint against small farmers tryin to make a living on the family farm. i'm against the over use and miss use of poisons. and the manufactures of the poisons lying about how harmful their stuff is. we have been programed all our lives to accept that poison is good.


----------



## TWall

j.kuder said:


> i didn't used to feel this way untill 1998 my farm got oversprayed with weed killer and pesticide by the corporate farming outfit that rented the 200 acres across the rd. from me


That would get me mad too! 

Tom


----------



## gmcharlie

Had you talked to them about your bees BEFORE hand??? I am betting not....


----------



## cg3

TWall said:


> impact on monarch buttflies


Logging in Michoacan


----------



## sqkcrk

TWall said:


> Why do you feel farmers are greedy? They have familes to support, bills to pay, etc. Why shouldn't they try to produce as much as they can?
> 
> Tom


And aren't beekeepers farmers too?


----------



## WLC

Beekeepers are invertebrate farmers. Sure.

But, this Canadian farm group seems to be asking for a moratorium on neonicotinoids:

http://www.nfu.ca/story/nfu-calls-precaution-and-independent-research-neonicotinoid-review

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/12/18/national-farmers-union-joins-fight-to-protect-bees/

I've never heard of a farmer's group asking for a ban on neonics before.

There are plenty of firsts coming from our northern neighbors.


----------



## sqkcrk

The mentioning of neonic on the CBC news today caught my ear as I traveled back home from Toronto.


----------



## WLC

Perhaps you heard something about this?

"Pesticide 'contaminating' Prairie wetlands: scientist; Researcher suggests pesticide may be linked to insect, bird declines "

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...minating-prairie-wetlands-scientist-1.2482082

This is what I was afraid of:

"In some cases we have peak concentrations that are 100 times or more higher than those benchmarks of safe levels." Morrissey said. She and her fellow researchers have sampled hundreds of wetlands and have found that "upwards of 80 to 90 per cent of the wetlands are contaminated."


----------



## sqkcrk

Yup, that was it.


----------



## gmcharlie

Boy you need to read....

Confidential goverment sources--- hogwash nothing in that data is confidential

May reduce mosquitoes... Really and thats bad?? trust me I have been to Canada... its a DARN good thing


MAY have an impact on birds

An asteroid MAY hit tomorrow...
Global warming MAY melt the polar ice caps....

Really?? ever here a reporter tell astory where "the sky wasn't falling?"


----------



## WLC

Well, let's see what we know.

Health Canada determined that a major bee kill was linked to neonics (in the field).

The PMRA called neonics 'unsustainable'.

Pioneer is offering uncoated seeds.

A farmer's group is calling for a moratorium.

And, Morrissey is finding evidence for vast environmental contamination.

I can understand why a government source would like to remain 'confidential'.


----------



## gmcharlie

And DO NOT FORGET.. a "scientist" has commented publicly on a 4 year study 18 months into it.... Boy that says a lot!

"Morrissey said there's plenty of evidence to show bird and insect populations are declining, but she acknowledges it's not yet clear if neonicotinoids are playing any role. Morrissey said she's attempting to learn how all of these pieces fit together."


read it all WLC Read it all......
Chicken little.....


----------



## WLC

When farmers use a neonicotinoid coated seed product, they have a reasonable expectation of the neonicotinoid staying on the seed/plant, and not contaminating their water supply and the surrounding environment.

I wouldn't blame the farmers or the Biologist doing a study.

However, if you have evidence that an 'accident' is underway, most folks would put on the brakes.


----------



## j.kuder

gmcharlie said:


> Had you talked to them about your bees BEFORE hand??? I am betting not....


at that point i had given up keeping bees in nj but the day i got sprayed was first hot day in may of that year. i was working on my truck and i remember seeing the tractor with the spray booms going up and down the rows spraying i didn't give it no thought was a real windy hot day had window fans on blowing outside air in. next morning fish in my little pond were dead floating on top still didn't give it much thought because i had just bought the fish and sometimes they don't ajdust and they die. later that day my wife had a couple of poodle pups and they were walking around acting like they where drunk. a few days later i noticed the cherry trees in my hedgerow looked funny so i went closer and the new growth was all turning white i went to my neighbor and told him i think we got sprayed so he got on his 4 wheeler and took a ride around the field. he came back with a box he found in the bushes had a jug in it said klomazone on the lable the unopened warninig packet was still on the jug. i pulled it out and on the warning section about overspray it said if overspray occures a whitening of vegetation surrounding the area will be noticed. well i started looking and the more i looked the more white vegetation i found some of it a 1/2 mile away from the field. and the story went on and on and i don't feel like typing it all out. so no i did not inform them that i had bees you were right


----------



## gmcharlie

Thanks for the honest reply... It is unfortunate, and these things do happen. It also sounds like a idiot employee. It is not the typical issue. Personaly I make it a point to know whos farming where and what within 1/4 mile of my hives. And talk to them. So far absolutly no issues. biggest problem I have is too many calls. ( not a real problem) one of my guys calls me every time he sees a swarm ( I hate swarm catching) .....

Most Farming is done with the land in mind as well as cost. For example WLC like to tell us how much he knows about farming, and claims continuous farming of the same crop. Patently false. 95% crops are rotated. on a regular basis not based on the grain markets, but what is best for the land via soil test.
Right not the big trend in my area is horseradish and parsnips. winter crops tilled into the ground in the spring breaks up eh ground and adds nutrients. its not cheap to seed and drill 1000's of acres with a seed you will never harvest.. but its done... ,,,,


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Oldtimer said:


> Have you found the non neonicitinoid insecticides are not harmful to bees?


Hi Oldtimer, well, certainly insecticides are insecticides. What differs here is the immunosuppression action of neonics. So while other stuff poisons the insects the one way or the other, the neonics suppresses the immune system, so nature (diseases) can hit.

One can observe this, if you look for it. I talk to farmers around my bee yards, so I know what they spray or use as a seed coating. I know where neonics are used and where not. I also test honey and pollen for a range of pesticides in two different laboratories. There is a correlation with colony collapsing in late summer and neonic occurence in hive products. I also see brood damage, queen failures and colonies that are weakened when contaminated with neonics. 

I learned to de-contaminate the hive by trapping pollen, removing and burning pollen combs (bee bread), removing contaminated nectar and honey, doing shakedowns and so. I feed pollen subs instead and this makes things better. I treat them as "patients". It is a really sad situation and I do have a bad gut feeling by barely keeping them alive year after year.

By moving away from the agricultural fields situation gets better. I opt to move the bees into the big cities. Some friends did that with good results. But of course you need many more and smaller apiary sites. 



cg3 said:


> Tim Ives reports that testing found zero pesticides in his hives.


Well, and in our hive products as honey, pollen pesticides of all sorts are regularily found. This explains a lot, I reckon. But one has to be careful, because "scientists" told us, they couldn't find anything. Until we found out, that they used laboratory equipment that doesn't test low enough. This stuff is so poisonous it has to be tested in ranges below 1 ppb (0-1 parts per billion). For a rough number: if you divide the LD50 value by 100 you get the dosage that will cause sublethal effects. I know that some do not like the sublethal talk, but lowering the immune system is a serious thing.

So one has to ask what the level of detail is when they test for pesticides.



gmcharlie said:


> 95% of the farmers I know are stewards of the land, and do more to continue its maintenance than any of the city slickers can even fathom.


I heartily agree. The farmers I know do know that "somethings going wrong". They see the damage they do to the soil firsthand and they do know it. But most of them do need to pay the bills so are forced to do what they do. But they are aware of it. Of course some of them simply give a ...so mixed attitudes can be found. However, I know a lot of oldtimers that were stewards of the land long before before the "chemical agriculture" was modern. And those oldtimers do understand the problems the chemicals do to the land much better as someone who took over the business in the midst of the chemical boom.

Solutions are not easy. Where I live there were three farms when I was young. Only one of them survived until today, the others went bankrupt or died away with nobody taking over the farm. The last farm is closing down it's agriculture and now is producing "new energies", biogas that is. So finally this systems leads to a collapse of agriculture. Sooner or later. (Including beekeeping.)



WLC said:


> I've never heard of a farmer's group asking for a ban on neonics before.


In Europe this can be found, too. As said, most farmers are aware of the problems created and some act likely. Even hunters see a significant bird decline and do start to campaign against certain pesticides. The discussions sometimes become very political and biased, a lot of half-truth. But one should not forget, that manufacturers are not very fair, too, they are media experts (or buy in people that are) and fairness or courtesy is a rare thing when it comes to a lot of money.


----------



## j.kuder

gmcharlie said:


> Most Farming is done with the land in mind as well as cost. For example WLC like to tell us how much he knows about farming, and claims continuous farming of the same crop. Patently false. 95% crops are rotated. on a regular basis not based on the grain markets, but what is best for the land via soil test.
> Right not the big trend in my area is horseradish and parsnips. winter crops tilled into the ground in the spring breaks up eh ground and adds nutrients. its not cheap to seed and drill 1000's of acres with a seed you will never harvest.. but its done... ,,,,


there was a farming outfit (family farm) in jersey that grew all fresh truck produce and the last 5 years or so that i was there i noticed they werent rotating and i believe the only way they could do that is with increased use of chemicals, fertilizers, weed killers, insecticides ect. and i believe there in lies the problem and its easy to see if you just give it a little thought. do you wait till all the wildlife is on the endangered species list like the eagles and other raptors. and if it aint good for wildlife it can't be good for us. all these chemicals create larger crops which drives the prices down then you have to work harder and produce more to make the same money you made the year before.


----------



## WLC

JK:

It's not just the issue of crop prices driving a reduction in crop rotation.

It's that it's next to impossible for farmers to find seeds in many parts of the country that don't come neonicotinoid coated.

IPM just isn't possible under those circumstances.


----------



## TalonRedding

WLC said:


> JK:
> 
> 
> IPM just isn't possible under those circumstances.


You got that right!


----------



## Oldtimer

Well if that's what you are finding Bernhard, that's what you are finding. But have you really found neonic levels at 1% of LD50? Sometimes we find what we are looking for.

My own experience is very different to yours. In the old days hives either killed, or damaged, by pesticides. But with neonics, haven't seen a hive affected, and don't even know anyone who has seen a hive affected.

We have had a weird thing in my country this year, quite a few beekeepers reporting losing queens, they just up and disappear. But it's happening near sprays, and also in remote areas nowhere near sprays.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Oldtimer said:


> But have you really found neonic levels at 1% of LD50?


My honey contains 0.028 Milligramm [mg] = 28 Mikrogramm [µg] Thiacloprid per Kilogramm.










That is 28 ppb. (1 ppb = 1 µg/kg)

The LD50-value, the dosis that kills 50 % of the bees in 24 hours, is 17 µg/bee. (So one bee in my case has to eat 600 Gramm of honey to reach the LD50.)

But as this study finds: "We demonstrate, however, that a daily exposure 1/100th concentration of the LD50 significantly affects the mortality rate of N. ceranae-infected honeybees."
from: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021550

600 Gramm of honey contain 17 µg Thiacloprid divided through 100 = 6 Gramm honey are enough to trigger sublethal effects. 

However it can be found in pollen, honey and other hive products. So it is there. 

You should test your hive products, so we can compare effects or no effects. If it is tested positively and you still see no effects, fine. But I doubt it. Here beekeepers observe the effects since 1998 when bees were poisoned in France by seed coated sunflower crops. And we learned a lot during that time, especially since we were misdirected many times and in many ways. 

Anyway. The more widespread the stuff becomes in hives, the more hives will suffer and die. The more beekeepers are affected by collapsing hives, the more awareness will happen. Wait and see yourself. That is how truth works it's way up to the surface. A lot of naysayers of the past suffered severe losses despite their good beekeeping practices and knowledge on how to nurse weakened bees. 
That is the point they start listening. It is a sad story that this has to happen before other beekeeper's experiences are believed. But of course, if you don't see it yourself it always is half true and becomes fully truth if experienced yourself.

So I sit and wait and let it happen. It is unnecessary, a bit more precaution would be better.


----------



## Oldtimer

No idea how to test for those things Bernhard, sorry.

Also I don't have collapsing hives or any of that other stuff people go on about, so what's the point. I keep mites low, that's it, no poison issues I'm aware of since the nasties of the old days are being used less.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Oldtimer said:


> No idea how to test for those things Bernhard, sorry.


You need to find a laboratory that has the tools to detect it. Needs to detect dosages below 1 ppb. There should be a food safety laboratory in every country, I reckon. At least one. Finding a lab is the biggest task.

You either pay for it for yourself - which has the bonus that you get your results. Or you find a sponsor like the gov to pay for the testing. 



Oldtimer said:


> I keep mites low, that's it,..


Yes, and I reckon you are good at keeping the mites at bay. So imagine the following situation. You have been fighting off mites for decades and are experienced and confident to do so. One day your colonies start collapsing one after the other. You fight. One or two years after: nothing. All seems normal. Then again, severe losses. You try all the strategies in your arsenal that you have to keep mites low. But despite all the things you do nothing works. Nothing. Bees are weak and die off. 

If you ever happen to experience this helplessness in the future, remind my words. Start decontaminating hives and move away from the source of the pesticides. Situation will become better.


----------



## Oldtimer

OK thanks Bernhard, I'll remember.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

WLC said:


> Well, let's see what we know.
> 
> Health Canada determined that a major bee kill was linked to neonics (in the field).
> 
> The PMRA called neonics 'unsustainable'.
> 
> Pioneer is offering uncoated seeds.
> 
> A farmer's group is calling for a moratorium.
> 
> And, Morrissey is finding evidence for vast environmental contamination.
> 
> I can understand why a government source would like to remain 'confidential'.


Thanks to our prime minister Stephen Harper, government scientists are not actually allowed to go public with their finding. Just type in a search with those keywords and you will find a great deal of information to prove that fact. Heres one http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/canadian-scientists-government-censorship but there are 100s others on different various topics. They want to remain anonymous to keep their job, which I suppose we cant blame them for.


----------



## gmcharlie

Bernhard, your missing a key point. Your complaint is about the testing levels in Say Tim's hives, or mine for that matter. Problem is it doesn't matter. I am betting you WILL find neonics.. which will show that bees can and do survive fine, at some level. and of course if you don't find any, then the claim will be "See i told you so" but what will be left out is the why hives in the most heavily used areas of neonics don't have any in them....
So further testing is moot. the only test that will matter is test beside hives that live, and ones right next to it that die. and I would bet you would in most cases find exactly the same levels. but until that test is done. most of the other "I poisoned them this way and found test" are all garbage in, garbage out....


----------



## WLC

I would use a different model to describe the current situation in Canada.

PMRA found neonicotinoid related Honeybee kills.

The Honeybees are environmental indicators. The so called 'canaries in a coal mine'.

They're indicators of environmental contamination, which is by far the bigger issue.

The evidence for that is now also being reported by scientists like Morrissey.

It's now up to Canadians to decide how they're going to respond.


----------



## Oldtimer

I don't think you are correct, saying bees are environmental indicators is way too oversimplistic.

We have just heard a claim that Tim's hives in a heavy neonics area don't have any contamination. Most commercial bees are manipulated by the beekeeper whose management determines what they are or are not exposed to. The intensive management negates the canary factor.

If Tim's hives are free of neonics contamination, that says that in his area, neonics are being applied in a manner safe to bees. Which is what, in theory, should happen with all pesticides. But those pesticides that get blanket sprayed by the tank load over crops are a lot harder to apply in a manner safe to bees.


----------



## cg3

Just my theory, but I worry more about homeowner pesticide use.


----------



## sqkcrk

Maybe the neonic levels in Tim's wax or honey is too low to detect or so far below lethal levels to be insignificant.


----------



## WLC

I would say that Honeybees excel as environmental indicators/detectors.

Why didn't Tim's hive have problems? Because there isn't the kind of environmental contamination going on where he is that causes colony losses. However, you don't need actual bee kills for Honeybees to detect various forms of environmental contamination.


----------



## cg3

Tim reported on Facebook that govt. testing of his pollen and wax turned up no pesticide or fungicides in an area of near universal corn and soy planting.


----------



## gmcharlie

your definatly wrong about the location of Tim's hives and Neonics....

WLC

Tim has loads of ag chems in the area.

WLC did you fread teh follow up post on bee_L about Morriseys in person discussions? that the high levels of neonics left in the soil were based on one sample that the half life was not what they expected??


----------



## cg3

I'm just sharing info I've read from Tim Ives. I'm unfamiliar with that part of the country but I hear it's monoculture corn and beans.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

WLC said:


> I would use a different model to describe the current situation in Canada.
> 
> It's now up to Canadians to decide how they're going to respond.


Based on several surveys, if it were up to Canadians to respond to the situation they would be banned. Unfortunately it is in the hands of bureaucrats. As much as Canada seems like the polite happy go lucky cold northern neighbor (and the average one is,) our politics have become decidedly close-doored and tight mouthed. It is those people who make the decisions.


----------



## Edymnion

Well in all fairness, the general public is poorly informed, irrational, easily swayed by the stupidest of things, and reluctant at best to accept anything that doesn't correspond to their existing views.

If we left major decisions up to the general public, we'd all be dead inside of a month.


----------



## WLC

Unfortunately, it was a government agency, Health Canada's PMRA, that made the neonic beekill find and announced that neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'.

I am aware of the Canadian polls. I wouldn't characterize the Canadian public as being poorly informed on the issue.

It's more like they're very concerned.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Unfortunately, it was a government agency, Health Canada's PMRA, that made the neonic beekill find and announced [HIGHLIGHT]that neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'.[/HIGHLIGHT]


No they did not!  :no:

Here is what Health Canada _actually said:




However, in spring 2013 with more typical weather patterns, we continued to receive a significant number of pollinator mortality reports from both corn and soybean growing regions of Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba. Consequently, we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable.For the 2014 planting season, we intend to implement additional protective measures for corn and soybean production, including:


[HIGHLIGHT]Requiring the use of safer dust-reducing seed flow lubricants;[/HIGHLIGHT]
[HIGHLIGHT]Requiring adherence to safer seed planting practices;[/HIGHLIGHT]
Requiring new pesticide and seed package labels with enhanced warnings; and,
Requiring updated value information be provided to support the continued need for neonicotinoid treatment on up to 100% of the corn seed and 50% of the soybean seed.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/...013-01-eng.php


Click to expand...


Nowhere is HealthCanada saying the use of __neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'. _They are saying that neonicotinoids _*planting practices*_ need to change.

WLC has _repeatedly _misrepresented what Health Canada has said on this issue. 







​ 
Here is one of of those previous instances.


:gh:


----------



## WLC

Rader:

I'm reading that they not only found neonic beekills, but they also called neonic coated seeds unsustainable.

What do you think they're saying?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I think that what Health Canada says on their website speaks for itself. 

Click the link in my post #273, or if that is too much trouble, here it is again ....
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_noi2013-01/noi2013-01-eng.php

Read it yourself ... :lpf:


:gh:


----------



## WLC

Rader, Pioneer is offering seeds without neonic coats at this point.

It's really just a matter of time before one of the provincial governments acts on the issue since the PMRA is dragging its feet.


----------



## Barry

"Just a matter of time", like 20 years.


----------



## WLC

Do you remember the last time we had a similar discussion?

Suddenly, the new Honeybee warning labels showed up as per the EPA?

It's not going to be 20 years. There's a lot of lobbying going on behind the scenes.


----------



## gmcharlie

Rader Sidetrack said:


> No they did not!  :no:
> 
> Here is what Health Canada _actually said:
> 
> 
> Nowhere is HealthCanada saying the use of __neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'. _They are saying that neonicotinoids _*planting practices*_ need to change.
> 
> WLC has _repeatedly _misrepresented what Health Canada has said on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> Here is one of of those previous instances.
> 
> 
> :gh:


Radar, can you put a counter in this se we can see how many times a day you have to correct him??:scratch:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Charlie, it seems to be about once a week. After one of these _corrections _ he rephrases it slightly so it is someone other than Health Canada allegedly making the statement. Then at about a week he drags out the old claim again.









Ya gotta be persistent if ya gonna change the world!










:gh:


----------



## WLC

Perhaps you're underestimating the impact that Morrissey's neonic contaminated wetlands find is having.

That's from neonic Canola, not neonic corn or soy.

So, it's not just corn and soy anymore.


----------



## Edymnion

gmcharlie said:


> Radar, can you put a counter in this se we can see how many times a day you have to correct him??:scratch:


Well in all fairness, he says Canadians are very informed on the topic. He, however, is in New York.


----------



## WLC

Resorting to the usual 'last resort' are we?

It happens every time the evidence against the safety of neonics becomes overwhelming.

Why not just say 'No Mas'?

Health Canada made the declaration, after all.

Are you referring to this source of information?:

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/09/...lling-their-own-bees-randy-oliver-2013-09-02/


----------



## Oldtimer

Why not be honest. I have grown so weary of misinformation and outright untruths from just a few members that although I cannot often be bothered correcting them all, I have stopped taking seriously anything that comes from them. If I hear anything new from some sources, mentally I tend to assume it won't be accurate. Which means the odd truth may slip through unnoticed.

And if that's how I've ended up feeling, there must be others.


----------



## WLC

Same old, same old.


----------



## Oldtimer

Seeing the same old misinformation posted months after it was corrected, is the same old.


----------



## WLC

"Health Canada's PMRA made the neonic beekill find and announced that neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'."'

That's not misinformation. 

Tell me exactly how you find it to be 'misinformed'.

Or, perhaps you prefer to subscribe to the views from this 'fringe' site:


http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/09/...lling-their-own-bees-randy-oliver-2013-09-02/

Someone you admire is prominently featured there.


----------



## Oldtimer

As I have never seen your linked site, using words that to some casual readers would imply I subscribe to it is more spin.

Did Health Canada use the word unsustainable? No? Then implying they did is spin and means using their real words does not fit the agenda.

But these are not really the misinformation I was referring to. I was referring to the steady stream of misinformation misquotes spin assumptions leading questions facts taken out of context 1/2 truths and opinion stated as fact that we have been subjected to for a while now.

I am sure the odd thing you say is correct, but I can't tell the difference.


----------



## WLC

"Did Health Canada use the word unsustainable? No? then implying they did is spin."

They sure did. That's not spin.

I put up the link to 'pesticidetruths' as an example of the positions some of you seem to be taking on this issue from my own perspective.

It's not only extreme, but it's untenable, especially at this point in time.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

However, in spring 2013 with more typical weather patterns, we continued to receive a significant number of pollinator mortality reports from both corn and soybean growing regions of Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba. Consequently, we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are* not sustainable*.

No you're right they didnt say unsustainable... they said not sustainable.... pota-TOE pota-TAH


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Now I am a pragmatist, I look at things pretty objectively and am not quick to draw conclusion.There probably are beekeepers out there whos bees all died over winter from varroa or starvation... I get that. Now actually living here makes me probably the most realistic objective person on this argument. I am here to tell you that there are VERY good beekeepers and scientists up here that are losing bees from pesticides. I buy my bees from one such person, whos father IS a bee scientists. Has hives and nucs that come out of winter fine, mites are not an issue, corn gets planted, day or two later they are dead. Explain that.


----------



## Ian

Quote Oldtimer, 

>>>>But those pesticides that get blanket sprayed by the tank load over crops are a lot harder to apply in a manner safe to bees<<<<


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> Consequently, we have concluded that [HIGHLIGHT] current agricultural practices [/HIGHLIGHT]related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are* not sustainable*.


If that quote is intended to be from Health Canada, the key phrase there is "_current agricultural practices_". For an explanation of what that means in Health Canada's _own _words, i.e. *planting practices*, see the quote and link I provided in post #273.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ok I'll have to admit that one, they did say not sustainable which is a fair approximation for unsustainable, I missed it. 

But that's what happens when people get so used to spin and twisted facts they just assume everything from a particular source is questionable, as I (wrongly) did in this case.


----------



## Ian

No Oldtimer, they are referring to the planters, not the neonicotinoid as being not sustainable.
Terms like un sustainable are powerful terms coming from government. THey only use language like this when moving on an issue ( here in Canada anyway) in this case its to do with planter dust, not neonic seed treatments


----------



## Ian

seems real odd to me, that one case in Ontario Canada with documented evidence of a Neonic bee kill off, due to planting conditions...
yet nothing from the millions of other acres in North America? All these farmers use the same vacuum planter, in dusty conditions, with bees right beside the fields, where are the rest of the documented bee deaths from planter blow off dust? Europe anyone? And I mean government study, not some grad students final paper...

Seems to me this planter dust issue gets confused with the other Neonic systemic poisoning claims.
The planter issue gets used to prove the systemic issue regularly. There is no relationship between the two.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ian said:


> No Oldtimer, they are referring to the planters, not the neonicotinoid as being not sustainable.


Ah yes I see it now. So the twist WLC put on it WAS a dishonest representation of the facts the whole time.

Goes to show, my gut feel about info from this source was justified and in fact correct. It's these subtle misrepresentations that I really don't like, I like to think I catch them but as this case has shown even I got fooled.

Honesty is the coin by which a valid debate can be held, and dishonesty removes the chance to even have a reasonable debate.


----------



## j.kuder

i aint against poison because of what i've read or what i've heard i'm against it because of first hand expeience. i have seen and felt the effects on my property my animals (including my bees) and my family and on my neighbors. poison is for killing and it aint target specific. you can't tell me that after the field across the rd gets sprayed with what i guess was geophosphate and the cat comes out of that field falling all over the place. that it does not have bad affects on all living creatures living around that field. everybody choose your own poison and enjoy i choose none


----------



## WLC

Ian:

It wasn't just 'one case' that was documented in Canada.

You should know better.


----------



## Oldtimer

J.Kuder, you are not alone in your opinion, from a pure beekeeping perspective, probably nobody here likes poisons.


----------



## Ian

>>Ah yes I see it now. So the twist WLC put on it WAS a dishonest representation of the facts the whole time.<<

And one thing not mentioned is the effort the chem company has put in to relieve that problem. With problems that have been demonstrated, solutions can be worked out.


----------



## Ian

And even that this case was isolated, happened one time over a couple hundred acres at most, millions of acres over North America is going to be be treated differently going forward. 

I guess the other solution would be take the product off the shelf. After all that is what this is all about


----------



## gmcharlie

honeydrunkapiaries said:


> Now I am a pragmatist, I look at things pretty objectively and am not quick to draw conclusion.There probably are beekeepers out there whos bees all died over winter from varroa or starvation... I get that. Now actually living here makes me probably the most realistic objective person on this argument. I am here to tell you that there are VERY good beekeepers and scientists up here that are losing bees from pesticides. I buy my bees from one such person, whos father IS a bee scientists. Has hives and nucs that come out of winter fine, mites are not an issue, corn gets planted, day or two later they are dead. Explain that.


Super simple down here we call it PPB...... I live in an area that makes your look like a backyard garden. 95% of the ground within 150 miles is corn and beans. and I have no problems, why? cause i am smart enough not to put my bees next to a field to be planted. 


OT don't give up, unfortuantly WLC goal is to influence those newbie readers. if we keep him defending his points, most will see teh other side and decide for themselves.


----------



## Haraga

It seems odd to me that people keep putting their bees in areas that are harmful then blame the farmer. I applaud you GM for being on the ball.


----------



## gmcharlie

Thanks Harga... it seems to me KNOWING that planter dust is a problem, and then still loosing bees to it is the pinnacle of insane and yet it seems to be the norm in Canada.....


----------



## Ian

>> bees to it is the pinnacle of insane and yet it seems to be the norm in Canada.....<<

You make it out to sound as if this happens on a regular basis.,? Or perhaps I Mis understood your comment. 
I run 900 hives, we use vacume planters using neonic treated seeds. I have yet to corrolate any losses towards the vacume planter. 

But it's easy to see how it could happen. But on over all it can't be much a problem otherwise more than one documented case would of been found.


----------



## gmcharlie

Sorry Ian... Didn't mean it that way....at all...inch:


----------



## Ian

:thumbsup:


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Ian said:


> >> bees to it is the pinnacle of insane and yet it seems to be the norm in Canada.....<<
> 
> You make it out to sound as if this happens on a regular basis.,? Or perhaps I Mis understood your comment.
> I run 900 hives, we use vacume planters using neonic treated seeds. I have yet to corrolate any losses towards the vacume planter.
> 
> But it's easy to see how it could happen. But on over all it can't be much a problem otherwise more than one documented case would of been found.


I think it was Dan Davidson, head of the OBA who planted his fields to get out of his tractor and find out all his bees were dead or dying. He is also (or was for conflict of intrests) on the board for the Grain Farmers group. 

Here are two interviews by Tibor Szabo, vice president of the OBA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNedBNeoKWA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeFouWhFDUE they give a pretty good overview of whats going on by someone smarter then me. 

I think planting dust is the current theory, which is why the planting practices were put in place. But if you read through the lines it is basically asking farmers to plant their fields in the rain, which is most likely NOT going to happen.


----------



## gmcharlie

Are you guys useing no till?? Our area here is almost all no till, so dust from equipment is very light. Even in fields that contain bees, control it is easy. the dust is only present for about an hour after planting. and bees must contact it. A simple sheet on the hive does a great job. wetting it the say helps... I have sheeted many hives while pesticides are sprayed on beans and not had problems.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Cant speak for everywhere, but here they till. Kind of one of the things id stress is beekeeping is highly localized in the sense that if I asked you how to overwinter my bees, well you wouldnt know. I think we need to treat the pesticide issue the same way, it may not effect people in different areas the same way because of the same variables.


----------



## gmcharlie

Agreed, to a point... I for example i don't know squat about canola and Neonics transfer. I do sunflowers (not the same) and I am also DANG sure that knowing whats goin on around your hive is a basic reposibility, more important in my mind than the right time to add supers.

Not sure why you guys till so much, may have to do with time to breakdown last years biomass.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Im not sure either, but I am not a farmer either. In Ontario it is mostly Corn / Soybean rotation, Canola is more out west. That said and kind of off topic, Ive found neonic seeds in deer poop... wonder if anyone has rocked a study on how it effects wildlife.


----------



## WLC

Well, treated seeds that aren't planted are known to kill wildlife.

While some of you are still focusing on neonic tainted talc dust. The emerging issue with neonics is that it's a water soluble systemic pesticide that's not only translocating away from where the treated seed was planted (in soil, water, and other plants), but it's also persisting in the environment for 3 years and more (Silty clay loam in Sacatchewan had a neonic concentration that wasn't degrading=no half life.).

It's not just about the bees.


----------



## gmcharlie

Lies and distortion again .. no onew said it wsa degrading, its said.. its was at a level 80% of what the expected after a year....

Salt is also a water soulable pesticide....


----------



## WLC

If you mean the Saskatchewan, silty clay loam half life of clothiadinin, that was from another study (Goulson, 2013).

The absence of a half life for clothiadinin in that sample came from De Cant and Barret (2010) in an EPA agency report.


----------



## grumpybeeman

drmanhadan said:


> Forgive me for my ignorance, but I believe playing the devil's advocate is important before committing oneself to any cause, despite being a beekeeper myself. I'm wondering _why_ the EPA continuously approves neonicotinoids despite implications that they are a major cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We cannot assume everyone in the agency is stupid or corrupt, especially when they are so concerned with the protection of the environment and wildlife.
> 
> What's yall's take on as to why the approval of the insecticide recurs?


Why are queen bees being bred to lay so much that they burn themselves out??? Could it be the early almond pollination that drives queen breeders to select genetics that favor high numbers in the hive to get that good frame count so the almond brokers pay well for the pollination reward? Even if the queen pushes herself too far in laying and needs to be requeened more regularly? Whether it is intentional or not to breed queens that overload themselves...The end result is that queen bees burn out, and the hive dies off in an unusually short time span that looks strangely enough like "ccd" If a couple big beekeepers blew the whistle on some of those crooked queen breeders that are flooding the market with pushed-to-far queen bees... I have a feeling some queen breeders would be chucking old foul brood combs out along the roads and we'd have a new outbreak of afb or efb....Or some other disease that all of a sudden strikes bee colonies all over the country...and that would mean it's not planned obsolescence breeding causing the bee die offs in the u.s. and all over the world. The idea is to buy queens and package bees every year to keep a portion of crooked queen breeders, and almond pollinators in business. Once again planned obsolescence in the bee world...Translated to the english language in laymans terms: But new every year! Throw away bees not ccd.... Buy more. Anybody forced to raise their own queens understand the short duration of life that queen bees have these days. What's going on right now with this ccd scare is pesticide companies making money, queen breeders getting rich, and a huge interest in beekeeping that hasn't been seen since montgomery ward used to sell beekeeping equiptment at the sears stores. That also means alot of bee equiptment being sold along with mite treatments. Why complain when you're making money right? Everybody gets their palms buttered with cash except the beekeeper that is keeping bees for honey production. If you're pollinating almonds you've lucked out because you get bees that are bred for pollination, not honey production. More people need to speak up about this. Entomologists get research money and paychecks, so they certainly wouldn't stand behind such a claim. Planned obsolescence is a rarely admitted to but rather regular practice in modern society. People need to be honest and stop blowing trumpets over the ccd, when it should be called QCD: Queen Collapse Disorder The queen breeders(honey oriented beekeepers) that raise queens to last several years are humble, and don't get enough thanks or appreciation for their honesty.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> ...Can you name one single U.S. beekeeper who doesn't want the current EPA pesticide approval process reformed to better protect both native and managed pollinators?
> Can't do it?
> Because we all want it reformed.


No, we would like it to be better than it is. Advocating for 'reform' is like voting for 'change'. Everyone has a different idea of what 'better' looks like, and they can all be corralled under the same tent _if_ the meaning of 'reform' (or 'change') is kept ambiguous. That way, the powers that be obtain the power to 'reform' from the masses...and the nature of the 'reform' doesn't have to be addressed, and no group, interest, or individual that advocated for 'reform' gets what they wanted and no one's interests are served.

deknow


----------



## camero7

From Health Canada's web site:
*New 2014 requirement*

When using a seed flow lubricant for planting corn or soybean seed treated with neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam or imidacloprid, only the Fluency Agent by Bayer CropScience is permitted to minimize the potential for abrasion that produces insecticidal seed dust. Talc and graphite are not permitted to be used as a seed flow lubricant for corn or soybean seed treated with these insecticides. Carefully follow the use directions provided with the Fluency Agent by Bayer CropScience.


----------



## beekuk

grumpybeeman said:


> If a couple big beekeepers blew the whistle on some of those crooked queen breeders that are flooding the market with pushed-to-far queen bees...


Who are they?


----------



## Haraga

beekuk said:


> Who are they?


For some reason these people are never man enough to name names.


----------



## WLC

This looks like it has spilled over to yet another thread.

Maybe Olivarez, out in California, would be one of them?


----------



## WLC

Here's some reading material:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3398436/

"A recent survey of U.S. beekeeping operations reported that beekeepers ranked “poor queens” as leading the top suspected causes for colony losses (van Engelsdorp et al. 2008)."

Here's another:

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/Rangel_et.al.2013 copy.pdf

"We also show that queens raised from
0-day-old worker larvae stored higher amounts of sperm in
their spermathecae, compared to queens raised from 2-dayold
worker larvae, thus confirming that queen grafting age
affects queen reproductive potential (Table S1)."

How could I forget this one:

http://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/pdf/first/m09146.pdf


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/Rangel_et.al.2013 copy.pdf
> "We also show that queens raised from
> 0-day-old worker larvae stored higher amounts of sperm in
> their spermathecae, compared to queens raised from 2-dayold
> worker larvae, thus confirming that queen grafting age
> affects queen reproductive potential (Table S1)."


I've started to look this one over..what I don't understand (relating to the quote you provide above) is, from the results section of the paper:


> Furthermore,
> for a subset of the queens raised in 2011, high-quality
> queens indeed had a statistically higher number of stored
> sperm cells in their spermathecae, compared to low-quality
> queens.


What makes up the 'subset'? Is the 'subset' necessarily representative of the whole? How do we know that? How does an observation about the 'subset' support the follwing claim (which directly follows in the same paragraph as the passage I quoted above)


> Thus, we confirmed that high-quality queens were
> not only larger in size, but also had a higher reproductive
> potential, compared to low-quality queens


deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes. Thanks for bringing that up Deknow. I would very much like to know the answer to that also, it matters to me.

While here i'll say that I find this type of fudging in studies totally aggravating. Despite that it may often be accidental or just poor communication, but it happens a lot.


----------



## WLC

When it comes to commercial queen Honeybees, it's not hard to find disagreement among the studies.

However, there is a lot of variance within some of the commercial queens examined.

So, it could be thought of as a 'quality control' problem.

There also appears to be at least one or two suppliers that seem to underperform in the studies.

Since they're 'blinded' studies, we'll never know who they were.


----------



## grumpybeeman

WLC said:


> When it comes to commercial queen Honeybees, it's not hard to find disagreement among the studies.
> 
> However, there is a lot of variance within some of the commercial queens examined.
> 
> So, it could be thought of as a 'quality control' problem.
> 
> There also appears to be at least one or two suppliers that seem to underperform in the studies.
> 
> Since they're 'blinded' studies, we'll never know who they were.



You should come out to wisconsin...There is more truth in observation to back up your theory.


----------



## Oldtimer

Likely true but can you answer Deknows question?


----------



## grumpybeeman

drmanhadan said:


> Forgive me for my ignorance, but I believe playing the devil's advocate is important before committing oneself to any cause, despite being a beekeeper myself. I'm wondering _why_ the EPA continuously approves neonicotinoids despite implications that they are a major cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We cannot assume everyone in the agency is stupid or corrupt, especially when they are so concerned with the protection of the environment and wildlife.
> 
> What's yall's take on as to why the approval of the insecticide recurs?


Because there are queen longevity issues due to genetics, and discussing topics like that on this forum bothers the pocket book of some. I can imagine that the epa knows the increased interest in beekeeping that is making package bee sellers & queen sellers money. Sometimes theres more bee breeding issues than pesticides that cause colony numbers to drop. I invite anyone to come over to southern wisconsin. I'd be glad to show everyone around, and schedule interviews...Epa included.


----------



## WLC

The only real agreement between the various studies, and there are certainly more available, is that the variance of certain characteristics measured is significant with regards to commercially available queens from some suppliers.

The rest is debatable. I don't think that beekeepers will be shocked by this. Duds happen. I've seen enough duds not to be surprised by it either.

What we don't know from the studies is if it consistently occurs with regards to certain commercial queen suppliers.

But, that's not what these studies are looking for. They try to correlate queen characteristics with productivity. I'd say that the results are a mixed bag, but instructive.

Watch out for that variance.


----------



## grumpybeeman

WLC said:


> The only real agreement between the various studies, and there are certainly more available, is that the variance of certain characteristics measured is significant with regards to commercially available queens from some suppliers.
> 
> The rest is debatable. I don't think that beekeepers will be shocked by this. Duds happen. I've seen enough duds not to be surprised by it either.
> 
> What we don't know from the studies is if it consistently occurs with regards to certain commercial queen suppliers.
> 
> But, that's not what these studies are looking for. They try to correlate queen characteristics with productivity. I'd say that the results are a mixed bag, but instructive.
> 
> Watch out for that variance.


 Be active with your local beekeeping organizations and attend meetings. Ask the bee keepers who attend: Who had the worst queen losses? Where did you buy your queens? Where did you buy your packages? Are there any good meetings coming up in Wisconsin so that we may publicly discuss queen & package bee losses?


----------



## Drone Bee

drmanhadan said:


> Forgive me for my ignorance, but I believe playing the devil's advocate is important before committing oneself to any cause, despite being a beekeeper myself. I'm wondering _why_ the EPA continuously approves neonicotinoids despite implications that they are a major cause of Colony Collapse Disorder. We cannot assume everyone in the agency is stupid or corrupt, especially when they are so concerned with the protection of the environment and wildlife.
> 
> What's yall's take on as to why the approval of the insecticide recurs?


You are an Angel's Advocate. The Devil would be the EPA. Why? That's easy, money, lots of money. More specifically, the chemical companies have bought our government. The same government that floods our economy and country with cheap labor and cheap products.

The really sad part is that you cannot do anything effective about it. Chemical applications will increase not decrease as the bee population is certain to do the opposite.

Our government is all about representing the interests of those who pay and that would not include you nor the honey bee.

Yours is an exquisitely posed and supremely apropos question with an all too obvious answer. Ergo the propaganda about the bee's decline being a mystery. 

I was beginning to wonder whether there were any common sense folk left alive in this country. I'm glad to see there is at least one. Thank you very much for asking the question.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> Because there is no direct evidence that neonics cause CCD? And nobody knows what catalyze means? There is no bee apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years.


There is no direct evidence because the government chooses to be blind to the obvious. And I know what catalyze means. And there is a bee Apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years? That's a flagrant lie.


----------



## sqkcrk

Can you point to a direct link between neonicotinoids and CCD? Can you point to data showing a decline in the colony count nationwide?


----------



## Drone Bee

Kamon Reynolds said:


> Lack of caring and Greed.


Your succinct and pithy reply sums up the situation better than an encyclopedia ever could.


----------



## hpm08161947

Drone Bee said:


> There is no direct evidence because the government chooses to be blind to the obvious. And I know what catalyze means. And there is a bee Apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years? That's a flagrant lie.


You might want to check out the latest USDA bee population data and get back to us.


----------



## Oldtimer

Drone Bee said:


> There is no direct evidence because the government chooses to be blind to the obvious.


Any direct evidence for that?


----------



## DPBsbees

Drone Bee said:


> There is no direct evidence because the government chooses to be blind to the obvious. And I know what catalyze means. And there is a bee Apocalypse. Censuses show an increase in colony numbers in recent years? That's a flagrant lie.


Like Snookie once said " I suspect a troll upon us who was once banned ".


----------



## Drone Bee

hpm08161947 said:


> You might want to check out the latest USDA bee population data and get back to us.


USDA? Are they any kin to the EPA? Why would anyone ever believe anything the USDA ever said? You probably believe the unemployment stats 'our' government publishes as well, right?


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> USDA? Are they any kin to the EPA? Why would anyone ever believe anything the USDA ever said? You probably believe the unemployment stats 'our' government publishes as well, right?


So Drone Bee, who are you? How many hives do you run? How long have you been keeping bees? What can you tell me about you?

Stats are stats. You have to be smart about how you read them. Unemployment stats aren't the whole story. Anybody who thinks they are is foolish. People use numbers to serve their adgenda.

Who would you believe about CCD and neonics? How about a Montana University Researcher?


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> Can you point to a direct link between neonicotinoids and CCD? Can you point to data showing a decline in the colony count nationwide?


You raise a VERY IMPORTANT point. There are NO STUDIES in the U.S. while they do exist in Europe where neonics have been banned. Data? From who? 'Our' government?

Commonsense is my data and my guiding light. I navigate by the stars above not propaganda machines.

Why are you pro-chemical? The fact that you are is highly suspicious even without 'data.'

There is a profound prima facie case against chemicals.


----------



## Drone Bee

Oldtimer said:


> Any direct evidence for that?


5,021 posts and you are smiling at chemicals? Odd. Incongruous.

Five thousand twenty one posts?


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> You raise a VERY IMPORTANT point. There are NO STUDIES in the U.S. ..
> 
> Why are you pro-chemical? The fact that you are is highly suspicious even without 'data.'


No studies that you know of. Studies do exist, if you seriously want to learn something different than what you already believe, based on emotion.

"Why are you pro-chemical?" What did I write which inspires you to assume such a thing?


----------



## Drone Bee

DPBsbees said:


> Like Snookie once said " I suspect a troll upon us who was once banned ".


I suspect lots too. I suspect chemicals are killing honey bees. Troll?

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I'm on topic. You are directing your attack towards me personally. Is a troll someone who disagrees with you?


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> 5,021 posts and you are smiling at chemicals? Odd. Incongruous.
> 
> Five thousand twenty one posts?


So I guess your answer is "No, I have no evidence of that."


----------



## Reg

Forgive my ignorance for I am new to beekeeping, but I have heard from many sources that in conjunction to pesticides that monoculture is a factor too. The fact that the bees diet isn't varied enough. Particularly in large commercial operations. Is there any truth to that or is that just gossip so to speak.


----------



## sqkcrk

Many factors, many unidentified as yet, contribute to the condition beekeepers find themselves in today. There are no easy answers. There is no one thing. It's complicated.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> So Drone Bee, who are you? How many hives do you run? How long have you been keeping bees? What can you tell me about you?
> 
> Stats are stats. You have to be smart about how you read them. Unemployment stats aren't the whole story. Anybody who thinks they are is foolish. People use numbers to serve their adgenda.
> 
> Who would you believe about CCD and neonics? How about a Montana University Researcher?


You dislike my argument so you change the subject to who I am rather than what I believe.

'A Montana University Researcher?' Wow! Is 'it' any kin to the EPA or the USDA? Must you address 'it' as Dr.? Too funny and too tragic. Too toxic.

Your zeal for chemicals is a non sequitur. 

Why do you defend chemicals when they obviously are killing all our bees?


----------



## hpm08161947

Drone Bee... have you been here before under a different name? Got BANNED and then your neighbor took over.... maybe 2 years ago. Pretty sure it was ARK. too. The style of writing seems very similar.


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]


You came into this Thread well after it started and you started off by calling me a liar. Had you said, "No, this is wrong and here is why." That would have been discussion. But you called me a liar. That's arguing, not discussing.


----------



## WLC

hpm08161947 said:


> Drone Bee... have you been here before under a different name? Got BANNED and then your neighbor took over.... maybe 2 years ago. Pretty sure it was ARK. too. The style of writing seems very similar.


Ask him what this emoticon is also known as...

:banana:


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> No studies that you know of. Studies do exist, if you seriously want to learn something different than what you already believe, based on emotion.
> 
> "Why are you pro-chemical?" What did I write which inspires you to assume such a thing?


You are much more emotion driven than me. I'm logical. Whereas you $eem illogical and emotional.

I notice that you turn up pro-chemical everywhere in this forum like a fireman coming to put out a fire. You are every bit the zealot I am but on opposite sides of the fire.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> So I guess your answer is "No, I have no evidence of that."


So I guess your evidence is bogus that chemicals are not THE reason bees are in decline.

It's hilarious that a beekeeper of all people would defend chemicals. It makes no sense whatsoever. None.


----------



## cg3

When one distrusts all sources of info, where should info come from?


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> You dislike my argument so you change the subject to who I am rather than what I believe.
> 
> 'A Montana University Researcher?' Wow! Is 'it' any kin to the EPA or the USDA? Must you address 'it' as Dr.? Too funny and too tragic. Too toxic.
> 
> Your zeal for chemicals is a non sequitur.
> 
> Why do you defend chemicals when they obviously are killing all our bees?


I asked about you because nowhere is there any indication that you are even a beekeeper. Have I avoided discussing the topic w/ you? No. Yet the same cannot be said about you.

You have an apparent disdain for someone with a title. What's that all about?

Show me my zeal for chemicals.

If chemicals causing CCD is so obvious then evidence should be easily found to be shown to be w/out a doubt. But you can't do that, can you?


----------



## DPBsbees

I stand by my post. No learnings. Just trolling for fish.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> Many factors, many unidentified as yet, contribute to the condition beekeepers find themselves in today. There are no easy answers. There is no one thing. It's complicated.


Yeah, it's a mystery.

I don't know who you are but if you lose your day job you might consider a lobbying job in Washington for a chemical company. Your advocacy is unrelenting and focused on blaming everything except the obvious, chemicals.

Whereas, I'm just a beekeeper looking at weak bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> So I guess your evidence is bogus that chemicals are not THE reason bees are in decline.
> 
> It's hilarious that a beekeeper of all people would defend chemicals. It makes no sense whatsoever. None.


Would it be an accurate guess that you use no chemicals what so ever?


----------



## WLC

Reg said:


> Forgive my ignorance for I am new to beekeeping, but I have heard from many sources that in conjunction to pesticides that monoculture is a factor too. The fact that the bees diet isn't varied enough. Particularly in large commercial operations. Is there any truth to that or is that just gossip so to speak.


It's worst than that. The 'Bee Slavers' steal all their honey, feed them high fructose corn syrup and 'pollen substitute' patties, then they kill their queen and replace her every year just to be sure that they can't organize a revolt.

It's just awful. :lookout:


----------



## Drone Bee

hpm08161947 said:


> Drone Bee... have you been here before under a different name? Got BANNED and then your neighbor took over.... maybe 2 years ago. Pretty sure it was ARK. too. The style of writing seems very similar.


Wow, another two thousand plus posts under your belt.

You have nothing meaningful to say in response to my logical arguments so you turn to personal stuff.


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> Whereas, I'm just a beekeeper looking at weak bees.


Really? Why should anyone believe you about that? If you want to know anything about me you can read my Profile under "About Me". Whereas, under your Profile "About Me" is blank. As a beekeeper you don't exist.


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> Wow, another two thousand plus posts under your belt.


Why are you so hung up on Post numbers? Jealous? Will you stop when you get to 200 so you don't become like those w/ thousands of Posts?


----------



## cg3

cg3 said:


> When one distrusts all sources of info, where should info come from?


In other words, where does one pull it out of?


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> You came into this Thread well after it started and you started off by calling me a liar. Had you said, "No, this is wrong and here is why." That would have been discussion. But you called me a liar. That's arguing, not discussing.


I'm new here and discovered this thread only this evening and I started from the top, the first post. I believe census studies that contend colonies are on the rise are flagrant lies. Studies that you cite. I believe the 'studies' are flagrant lies.

Your mind is made up about chemicals just like mine is.

There is nothing you can argue that will change my mind that chemicals are killing our bees. Mine is a natural position to hold. But yours is not. It's unnatural and suspicious.


----------



## cg3

Drone Bee said:


> Mine is a natural position to hold.





cg3 said:


> In other words, where does one pull it out of?


Ah, I see.


----------



## Drone Bee

cg3 said:


> When one distrusts all sources of info, where should info come from?


The bee-yard, commonsense and awareness of what motivates people the most. Hint: It starts with m.

And Europe does seem ahead of the U.S. in concluding the obvious.


----------



## cg3

Yes, I think it's mites, too.


----------



## cg3

What is nectar if not chemicals?


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> Why are you so hung up on Post numbers? Jealous? Will you stop when you get to 200 so you don't become like those w/ thousands of Posts?


I'm shooting for 23,597 so I can be like you but a friend of the bees rather than a friend to their enemy.

It's quite sad that a beekeeper would not instinctively abhor chemicals.

Have you ever fed your bees chemicals?


----------



## cg3

You're getting $15/lb for your honey, aren't you?


----------



## Drone Bee

cg3 said:


> Ah, I see.


How about you? Do you feed your bees chemicals? Any data? Any evidence?


----------



## cg3

Evidence is what I see, just like you.


----------



## Drone Bee

cg3 said:


> Evidence is what I see, just like you.


Your determination is quite telling. It speaks volumes. It's evidence of the obvious that need not even be stated for a thinking man of which there are fewer and fewer.

Do you feed your bees chemicals?


----------



## cg3

Not sure you have a handle on what chemicals are.


----------



## sqkcrk

Drone Bee said:


> Your mind is made up about chemicals just like mine is.
> 
> There is nothing you can argue that will change my mind that chemicals are killing our bees. Mine is a natural position to hold. But yours is not. It's unnatural and suspicious.


No, that is not true at all. It is entirely likely that a certain set of chemicals are part of the problems we experience w/ our bees today. My mind is not made up about what those chemicals are, except that it seems like those that beekeepers put into their hives themselves has something to do w/ how well queens develop, how good drones sperm is, and etc. But, what also seems to be true is that neonics have not been found to be the cause of our problems. Which is your position. Your the one whose mind is made up, not mine. I'm still open to an explanation, brought about by further study done by Professional Researchers, not ammature faux beekeepers.

Sure, your assumptions are the natural assumptions to jump to. I'll give you that. But they are not based on facts or knowledge. They are assumptions.


----------



## Drone Bee

cg3 said:


> Not sure you have a handle on what chemicals are.


I'm certain you know exactly what chemicals are and what they do to bees. For what it's worth, I don't feed my bees chemicals. It would kill them. That's what poison does. It kills.


----------



## cg3

And I know a slogan about assumptions.


----------



## cg3

Drone Bee said:


> I'm certain you know exactly what chemicals are and what they do to bees. For what it's worth, I don't feed my bees chemicals. It would kill them. That's what poison does. It kills.


Good to know. Since they're doing well, I guess what I'm feeding them isn't "chemicals".


----------



## hpm08161947

Drone bee.... I gather you are a treatment free beekeeper. What percentage of your bees do you lose over a year. How do you replace them.

Would you consider someone who feeds HFCS, one who douses his bees with chemicals?


----------



## sqkcrk

Enjoy yourself Drone Bee. Maybe you will do us all a favor and find a Queen Bee.

You seem to be full of hate and distrust asking questions and never answering any w/ anything meaningful or positive.

Have a nice life.

Come on charlie, Chat Room is open.


----------



## julysun

Drone Bee said:


> I'm shooting for 23,597 so I can be like you but a friend of the bees rather than a friend to their enemy.
> 
> It's quite sad that a beekeeper would not instinctively abhor chemicals.
> 
> Have you ever fed your bees chemicals?


Now come on, abhor chemical compounds that hurt bees yes, but chemicals in general is a stretch.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> No, that is not true at all. It is entirely likely that a certain set of chemicals are part of the problems we experience w/ our bees today. My mind is not made up about what those chemicals are, except that it seems like those that beekeepers put into their hives themselves has something to do w/ how well queens develop, how good drones sperm is, and etc. But, what also seems to be true is that neonics have not been found to be the cause of our problems. Which is your position. Your the one whose mind is made up, not mine. I'm still open to an explanation, brought about by further study done by Professional Researchers, not ammature faux beekeepers.
> 
> Sure, your assumptions are the natural assumptions to jump to. I'll give you that. But they are not based on facts or knowledge. They are assumptions.


Is there any professional evidence that flooding our economy with cheap foreign products is healthy and beneficial to the middle class? You are a professional hack clearly motivated by money and not reason and certainly not honor.

How do you find time to keep bees with so many posts?

Do you feed your bees chemicals?


----------



## cg3

hpm08161947 said:


> Would you consider someone who feeds HFCS, one who douses his bees with chemicals?


Herb, we've already found out that if they're alive, it wasn't chemicals


----------



## Drone Bee

hpm08161947 said:


> Drone bee.... I gather you are a treatment free beekeeper. What percentage of your bees do you lose over a year. How do you replace them.
> 
> Would you consider someone who feeds HFCS, one who douses his bees with chemicals?


I've treated and I've not treated. I lost bees both ways. I lost over half of my hives last year. I replace them by splitting them.

I don't think HFCS is decimating our bee population but rather chemicals.


----------



## Drone Bee

sqkcrk said:


> Enjoy yourself Drone Bee. Maybe you will do us all a favor and find a Queen Bee.
> 
> You seem to be full of hate and distrust asking questions and never answering any w/ anything meaningful or positive.
> 
> Have a nice life.
> 
> Come on charlie, Chat Room is open.


You can't win the argument so you declare victory and leave it. As I said many posts ago, you are winning and will win. While the bees are losing and will continue to lose because of chemicals. I love honey bees and hate chemicals. I see you as the true hater. You hate bees as you allow them to be poisoned to death.


----------



## hpm08161947

How about naming 1 chemical that is currently used on bees that you are sure is causing this decimation. 2 if you like....


----------



## cg3

Anything is "chemicals", but by your apparent definition, I guess not, I think.


----------



## hpm08161947

I just wanted you to name a single decimating bee chemical. Not a trick question. Most of the TF guys I know would be horrified by HFCS..... I mean... they are raised by Neonics! GMO on top of that...


----------



## Drone Bee

hpm08161947 said:


> I just wanted you to name a single decimating bee chemical. Not a trick question. Most of the TF guys I know would be horrified by HFCS..... I mean... they are raised by Neonics! GMO on top of that...


Chemicals are an easier target. You try to confuse the issue. Chemicals kill honey bees.

Do you feed your bees chemicals?


----------



## Drone Bee

drmanhadan said:


> So what's all the hype about? Are the studies linking CCD to neonicotinoids bull?


The studies are the hype. The hype is intended to confuse and divert attention away from focusing in on chemicals.

How many beekeepers in this forum would feed their bees chemicals? This is all non-sense. The obvious can't be proven because those in charge don't want it proven. It's obvious that chemicals kill bees.

I was talking about bee removal from a house the other day with a friend and he suggested taking a can of Raid and killing the bees.

Are there any studies out there linking Raid with killing honey bees? How about Sevin dust? It's not hard to prove. Rather it's impossible to prove because of our government. Period.


----------



## WLC

Pesticides do cause colony losses. The problem is that the media often confuses colony loss with CCD proper.

We know what causes CCD in the U.S., It's a strain of IAPV. They've been able to make a virus prep from CCD colonies, feed it to other colonies, and get CCD.


----------



## grumpybeeman

Reg said:


> Forgive my ignorance for I am new to beekeeping, but I have heard from many sources that in conjunction to pesticides that monoculture is a factor too. The fact that the bees diet isn't varied enough. Particularly in large commercial operations. Is there any truth to that or is that just gossip so to speak.


Breeders push out large number of queens, and cut corners to streamline the process. The quality of the queen bee goes down as a result, and we're seeing queens that don't last very long. People that sell package bees will disagree with that, because it's bad for business. The issue is hushed up & sidetrack by barking about pesticides, when extremely LARGE queen breeders in california are flooding the market with pollination-almond-queens. Monoculture in beekeeping is very destructive to the beekeeper that isn't involved in pollination-migrations. I disagree with pesticides being the main culprit and point my finger at the queen breeders and also at the package bee dealers that keep the issues cloaked for money reasons. Monoculture is the cause of beekeepers woes no doubt. But in what order? Monoculture: "a culture dominated by a single element : a prevailing culture marked by homogeneity" Unfortunately the pesticides stacked on top of throw away queens, stacked up on top of mites, stacked up on mite diseases, etc. It's just one all too sad picture with a big dollar sign on it.


----------



## grumpybeeman

julysun said:


> Now come on, abhor chemical compounds that hurt bees yes, but chemicals in general is a stretch.


It's not the technology that is bad, but rather the practice of misusing that technology. If someone is foolish to put their beehives next to a cornfield, the end result is obvious.


----------



## WLC

grumpy:

With regards to queen quality, I did find it interesting that larvae grafted at zero days produced larger queens than those grafted at 2 days.

If you put it in a queen cup, they'll try to make a queen out of it.

So, the variance in queen quality could, in part, be due to the grafting process itself.


----------



## grumpybeeman

WLC said:


> grumpy:
> 
> With regards to queen quality, I did find it interesting that eggs grafted at zero days produced larger queens than those grafted at 2 days.
> 
> If you put it in a queen cup, they'll try to make a queen out of it.
> 
> So, the variance in queen quality could, in part, be due to the grafting process itself.


How sensitive early on, are the bees to mite treatment chemicals?


----------



## sqkcrk

grumpybeeman said:


> If someone is foolish to put their beehives next to a cornfield, the end result is obvious.


Uh, no, it isn't. One does not follow the other.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> With regards to queen quality, I did find it interesting that eggs grafted at zero days produced larger queens than those grafted at 2 days.


So u r talking about grafting worker eggs into queen cups, not first day larvae? Is that what you are saying? How did u do that? A Nicot system?


----------



## camero7

sqkcrk said:


> Uh, no, it isn't. One does not follow the other.


Absolutely correct. Too many examples for it to be argued.


----------



## sqkcrk

grumpybeeman said:


> If someone is foolish to put their beehives next to a cornfield, the end result is obvious.


Anecdotal observation is not evidence of facts.


----------



## jonathan

WLC said:


> grumpy:
> With regards to queen quality, I did find it interesting that eggs grafted at zero days produced larger queens than those grafted at 2 days.


You rear queens by grafting small larvae not eggs.
A 2 day larva is far too old to make a decent queen.
Ideally you want a larva which is 4-18 hours old.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel




----------



## WLC

jonathan said:


> You rear queens by grafting small larvae not eggs.
> A 2 day larva is far too old to make a decent queen.
> Ideally you want a larva which is 4-18 hours old.


Correct, the original article said larvae. My error.


----------



## Tim Ives

grumpybeeman said:


> It's not the technology that is bad, but rather the practice of misusing that technology. If someone is foolish to put their beehives next to a cornfield, the end result is obvious.


So why dont I have dead bees? 19 different yards, 16 are within a stone's throw of corn/bean field. Hives at Apple orchard are 4' away from cornfield, Apple trees get sprayed 3 times a year with assail(a neonic). Why is this a zero loss yard since started in 2008?

Tim Ives


----------



## hpm08161947

Tim Ives said:


> So why dont I have dead bees? 19 different yards, 16 are within a stone's throw of corn/bean field. Hives at Apple orchard are 4' away from cornfield, Apple trees get sprayed 3 times a year with assail(a neonic). Why is this a zero loss yard since started in 2008?
> 
> Tim Ives


I think that the "Chaffing Corn Seed" problem has been figured out or at least farmers are aware of it. I have never seen the Corn wipeout either.... guess I am stupid......


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Guess you are lucky enough that your bees are not forced to forage on contaminated crops. While you can't detect neonics in your pollen and honey, we do. So that is the difference. We live in a pollen and nectar desert, you don't. It is not the absolute answer to your questions, but the most obvious if you don't detect the stuff in your hive products but we do.


----------



## sqkcrk

BernhardHeuvel said:


> We live in a pollen and nectar desert, you don't.


Then how do you keep bees there?


----------



## hpm08161947

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Guess you are lucky enough that your bees are not forced to forage on contaminated crops. While you can't detect neonics in your pollen and honey, we do. So that is the difference. We live in a pollen and nectar desert, you don't. It is not the absolute answer to your questions, but the most obvious if you don't detect the stuff in your hive products but we do.


So I gather your bees actively consume corn pollen? That would be quite different than what I observe here.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

sqkcrk said:


> Then how do you keep bees there?


I move bees away from the crops that are about to be sprayed and I do trap contaminated pollen to keep it out of the hive. I also consider to move into the suburban/urban area or into the woods to avoid the agricultural fields. 



hpm08161947 said:


> So I gather your bees actively consume corn pollen?


Yes. It is almost the only source of pollen during that time.


----------



## sqkcrk

How did those bees do after foraging on corn?


----------



## camero7

Is that sweet corn or field corn?


----------



## jim lyon

Bernard: Are those your photos? Seems like I have seen them before somewhere. I am also curious what type of corn that is. 
I spent a couple afternoons this past summer purposefully looking for bees working the newly tasseled and blooming field corn. Checked maybe a dozen corn fields none of which were more than a few hundred feet from actively flying bee yards. I couldnt find a single bee in any of them. I even recorded videos which I still have on my phone. They really arent much to see, just videos showing nothing closeup views of tall corn swaying in the breeze with bee hives in the background. FWIW at the same time I went on an extensive hunt through soybean fields hoping to see bees working....nothing again. Not saying they dont work them on occassion but to find them out in this country is akin to a hunt for sasquatch.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

sqkcrk said:


> How did those bees do after foraging on corn?


Depends. The pattern what happens after being in contact with corn pollen is irregular. The colonies get sick and weak. Sometimes they recover, sometimes they don't. 

Same with other crops like canola. Since I am trapping pollen and moving bees (and doing other stuff) the losses were reduced to almost nothing, while my two neighbour beekeepers - who didn't believe me either in the past - one lost half and the other all of his hives after the illegal spraying of canola last year. (both keeping about 50 hives)



camero7 said:


> Is that sweet corn or field corn?


Field corn. 



jim lyon said:


> Bernard: Are those your photos?


Yes, you find them on my website. I posted them before on beesource, I reckon? The last two are pictures of a good friend. She is a beekeeper, too, and lives nearby. My friends have shot a many pictures of bees foraging for pollen in corn fields, since the government/officials didn't believe us in the past, because corn definitely is not a typical bee plant. But with nothing else left in the landscape except corn there is not much of a choice.


----------



## jim lyon

If government/officials arent believing you it seems like a relatively simple analysis of the comb stored pollen and/or pollen in the honey would be proof. Has that been done? Beautiful pics.


----------



## deknow

But the USDA pollen survey _does_ show significant imidacloprid in stored pollen...so we do have neonics in the pollen here.

deknow


----------



## Birdman

Corn is not a good pollen for nutrition if that is all they have to forage on, it could be malnutrition. If the bee's are not doing good in that area, why would you keep putting bee's there or leave them and try feeding. The corn in the pictures is sweet corn, Field corn has a different type of tassal


----------



## jim lyon

Birdman said:


> Corn is not a good pollen for nutrition if that is all they have to forage on, it could be malnutrition. If the bee's are not doing good in that area, why would you keep putting bee's there or leave them and try feeding. The corn in the pictures is sweet corn, Field corn has a different type of tassal


Well I will take Bernard at his word, I know nothing about European corn varities. I will say though that its appearance is far different than what you see in a midwestern corn field where the stems are far more upright and the bloom much less profuse.


----------



## jim lyon

I apologize for the amateurish video quality and my poor videography skills but this may give a general idea to the uninitiated of the appearance of a corn field that one might well see here in the midwest. It proves little, of course, except that in this location, on this day, bees were uninterested in working this corn. A similar scene was repeated in 4 other videos I took. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUvEgqqdjWA


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> But the USDA pollen survey _does_ show significant imidacloprid in stored pollen...so we do have neonics in the pollen here.
> 
> deknow


What constitutes "significant"? A high ppb number? What was the National Average(ppb) for imidacloprid? What was the National Prevalence(%)?

The "Level of Detection(LOD) of the screening process (the minimum amount that can be reliably detected)" for imidacloprid is 1ppb.

The "Prevalence, or percentage, that the specific pesticide was detected in all samples." for imidacloprid is 2.9%. In other words 2.9% of the samples in the study showed that imidacloprid was present.

The "Average Detection if positive for target" is "23.3"(ppb).
The "Range if positive for target" is "2.8-216"(ppb).

This is what was reported in "Table 2: Prevalence of Pesticides found in all samples (n=451) analyzed for the National Honey Bee disease survey."

Significance is questionable? Debatable? Does presence make it significant?


----------



## sqkcrk

In the National Honey Bee Survey USDA/APHIS Honey Bee Pollen/Pesticide Diagnostic Report Table 2 showed that what was most prevalent was 2,4 Dimethylphenyl formamide, aka Amitraz, w/ a prevalence of 21.3%, Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide mainly used for cutworm, corn root worms, and etc. w/ a prevalence of 20.4%, Coumaphous w/ a prevalence of 37.7%, Fluvalinate w/ a prevalence of 50.8%, Pendimethalin, an "herbicide used to control annual grasses and certain broadleaf weeds", w/ a prevalence of 11.3%, and Thymol w/ a prevalence of 21.1%.

The rest of the chemicals listed were found in less than 10% prevalence on down to tenths of percents.

So one can easily see that Beekeeper applied miticides are what shows up in the pollen samples in this study most often. Seems logical to assume that the bees bring in the other things like herbicides and such.

In the report from my own hives I was surprised, impressed by the findings of materials I haven't used in what I considered a long time. I guess that show their persistence. And unless the bees brought tainted pollen into the hive those chemicals must have leeched out of the wax into the pollen stored in the cells. Unless wax was gathered along w/ the pollen thereby tainting the sample. I did not oversee the collection of the pollen samples as well as I should have.

Traces of Coumaphos oxon(degraded Coumophaus), Fluvalinate, and Pendimethalin were found. PPB levels of Amitraz, Coumaphos, and Thymol were found. Amitraz and Coumaphos had not been used in my hives for years. Thymol, in the form of Apigaurd, had been used 6 or 7 months earlier.

Neither Formic acid or OA was not on the list, by the way.


----------



## Tim Ives

sqkcrk said:


> Tell me what CCD is and what causes it.


(C)hemical (C)omb (D)isorder- Fluvalinate 50.8%, Amitraz 21.3%, Thymol 21.1%, Coumaphos 37.7%, Fenpyroximate 6.2% = 137.1% (N=451 samples)
Chlorpyrifos 20.4% is also used to control ****roaches and fire ants?


----------

