# Poster Child



## clyderoad

will you share where that's written?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I believe it came from here ...

http://www.honeycolony.com/article/ccd-poster-boy-david-hackenberg-loses-90-of-his-bee-hives/


----------



## clyderoad

thanks Rader.


----------



## vermin06

A good book I read was Michael Schacker's, "A Spring Without Bees". He sites his sources well, and explains things concisely. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for a starting point in the CCD/pesticide (neonicotinoid) investigation.


----------



## Ian

Because I feel for the guy, but it's his second near wipe out.!? What's the story behind this story ? I'm sure he gave approval to have his quote lead that agenda driven article...


----------



## Oldtimer

From the article - "now researchers are even finding neonics in the liver belonging to deers, and maybe even pheasants, muskrats, elk, and moose".

Maybe? What does that mean? The journalist thinks maybe they did but he don't know? Dislike this shonky journalism.


----------



## beemandan

I recall the sixty minutes segment some years ago during the CCD episode. Hackenberg took a reporter out into his beeyard, popped the cover on a hive....and deftly removed a shop towel from the tops of the frames. If you weren't watching closely you'd have missed it. I'm not saying this is all his own fault...but I don't think he's squeaky clean either. Just my opinion.


----------



## Oldtimer

Remember that. 

He wouldn't be the only one though and most others not having these losses. But bottom line nobody knows what he's doing / using, might be same as others, might be something off the wall.

Are there other beekeepers in the same territory and NOT having similar losses?

I'm also trying to understand the economics of it. Pretty sure that in my country if someone had 70,000 hives and lost 40,000 one year, then went on to have around 90% losses for each of another 2 years, they would be done, broke, out of the industry. How do these guys survive?


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> He wouldn't be the only one though


I agree. It's just that if you start pointing fingers elsewhere...you ought to have your own house in order.


----------



## DPBsbees

Wasn't a shop towel with Taktic a relatively common miticide in the day for large operators?


----------



## Oldtimer

Still is. Thing is, you see a shop towel, don't necessarily mean it's tactic. A guy with a record like that you have to wonder what he could be doing, his results indicate something is amiss.


----------



## Oldtimer

beemandan said:


> I agree. It's just that if you start pointing fingers elsewhere...you ought to have your own house in order.


Agreed. Should he go to court and the other side has a competent lawyer it would be hard for him to prove it was the "other guys fault".


----------



## beemandan

DPBsbees said:


> Wasn't a shop towel with Taktic a relatively common miticide in the day for large operators?


Sure...and as Oldtimer pointed out it still is. But...was Taktic what he used? And, if so, at what concentration? And a slew of other questions come to mind. 
Again...I'm mainly saying that he was pretty foolish to open that hive in front of sixty minute's cameras for the world to see...and then blame neonics for his colonies' collapse.


----------



## DPBsbees

Have to agree. If I lost that number of hives I'd be paying to have everything analyzed to determine a cause so I could prevent it from happening again.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

beemandan said:


> .I'm mainly saying that he was pretty foolish to open that hive in front of sixty minute's cameras for the world to see....


What I saw was dry black old drone comb, this thread should be in the 101 section.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm I'd like to take another look, anyone have a link to that footage?


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> Hmm I'd like to take another look, anyone have a link to that footage?


How about this?

http://bee-quick.com/ccd/60min_slo_mo.gif

or this

http://bee-quick.com/ccd/60min.gif


----------



## Michael Palmer

Yep, it musta been neonics. Again and again and again.


----------



## Oldtimer

Hmm, didn't look a whole lot like drone comb to me.


----------



## HarryVanderpool

I like Dave.

Also, it seems to me thoughtful to refrain from making irresponsibly insensitive comments about a fellow beekeeper that has suffered such a devastating loss for WHATEVER reason.
:no:
But that's just me.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

HarryVanderpool said:


> making irresponsibly comments


This is what upsets me, know whats doing your bees in before running to the microphone. Most I've seen the last 5-7 years losses has been self inflected.


----------



## sqkcrk

HarryVanderpool said:


> I like Dave.
> 
> Also, it seems to me thoughtful to refrain from making irresponsibly insensitive comments about a fellow beekeeper that has suffered such a devastating loss for WHATEVER reason.
> :no:
> But that's just me.


:thumbsup:


----------



## Harley Craig

beemandan said:


> I agree. It's just that if you start pointing fingers elsewhere...you ought to have your own house in order.


My ol man always told me when you point a finger at someone there are 3 more pointing back at you ....I dont know a thing about the guy but I think it may apply here. One would think here in the grain belt where we are riddled with neonics one would here about this all the time, one of my biggest flows is neonic soybean here and we just t dont see it


----------



## clyderoad

The minute Hackenberg went public about his bee losses and then became party to a lawsuit claiming neonics killed off his bees he became fair game 
for public discussion and criticism. 
His claims affect other beekeepers, farmers and maybe public policy.
Those in the bee game should talk more about him and his issues, not less, and some of the discussion should cover government payouts
for dead bees.


----------



## jim lyon

Oldtimer said:


> From the article - "now researchers are even finding neonics in the liver belonging to deers, and maybe even pheasants, muskrats, elk, and moose".
> 
> Maybe? What does that mean? The journalist thinks maybe they did but he don't know? Dislike this shonky journalism.


Shonky? Well the article was written by MaryAnn Henein the director of Vanishing of the Bees so we aren't breaking any new scientific ground here just warmed over activist journalism. 
My sympathies to both the Hackenbergs and Adee operations losing bees is no fun. The truth is there is really no evidence presented here that would indicate why these operations are running such high losses.


----------



## Ian

Like Dave or not, I don't know Hackenburg, that's why I'm asking the question. Is he singing to his audience or is he being mis represented??


----------



## DPBsbees

I'm a small player but hail from the Hackenberg's state. Dave has presented to our club several times and has always been involved in our state beekeeping organization. He is generous, gracious, and kind. Don't have a bad thing to say about him or his family. I'd just like to know the reason for the losses. Has the Adee family come up with an explanation for theirs that I haven't heard for the losses mentioned in the article? As this info gets to my clubs members they are going to want answers. Many small beekeepers, as you all know, really care too. I'm getting real flack as the President of a bee club with the angst the Ag community is feeling with some of our members comments about neonics and GMO stuff. We need more facts and less supposition. Sorry for the rant.


----------



## jim lyon

Anything I would say would be pure speculation just like the article that started this thread.....but I do like your tag line Dan.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

jim lyon said:


> .but I do like your tag line Dan.


I second that Jimbo, great tag line, Dan.


----------



## Ian

“As a beekeeper for over 50 years, I have lost more colonies of honey bees in the last 10 years from the after-effects of neonic seed coatings than all others causes over the first 40 plus years of my beekeeping operation,” says Hackenberg.

As a grain farmer I'm getting tired of the blame game... We have the farm equipment here, without seed treatments we will adjust and carry on...
Far as I'm concerned, pull the **** product! Let's fix the beekeeping industry with one single act...


----------



## RichardsonTX

When its known that neonics are highly lethal to honey bees and bees are kept on crops most of the year that utilize neonics, I don't think it's really a surprise to anyone that there are high losses. Unless sufficient studies are carried out that provides proof neonics do more harm for the agriculture industry as a whole than good, it should be assumed they'll continue to be used regardless of how much complaining takes place by beekeepers or the public. Unless farmers reduce their use of chemicals harmful to the bees provided for pollination during the time the bees are in pollination service, like Paramount Farms professed they did in 2014, the farmers will have to continue paying high pollination fees. And as long as actual losses for the beekeeping industry as a whole continue to be above acceptable levels, pollination costs will most likely continue to climb. I seen one article that Bayer is recommending imidacloprid not longer be used on almonds.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Oldtimer said:


> Remember that.
> 
> 
> How do these guys survive?


ELAP


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> I do like your tag line Dan.


The only reason I chose it Jim, was that you'd already taken my favorite.


----------



## jim lyon

I guess my belief is that it's difficult to flatly state (as Mr. hackenberg does) that all his losses in the past 10 years have been caused by neonics as there are so many variables involved. Our operation is in the same geographic area as the Adee operation and while we lose bees as well (who dosent) they don't approach the percentages that the Adee's are reporting. Perhaps some of my losses could be attributed to neonics, I simply don't know and don't know how I would know without some scientific confirmation. Absent that, my assumption is the culprit is the two headed varroa/virus monster. Maybe I'm just naive. All I know for sure is that year in and year out when you have a good late summer flow coupled with good mite control that your bees are generally pretty strong going into the winter and that bees that go into the winter with large healthy clusters invariably look good 2 to 3 months later. 
Randy Oliver's summary on this I think is the best read. But don't just take his slant on it, take the time to read all the supporting links at the bottom of the article. Spend some time studying the issue, dig a little deeper than Ms. Henein does in her article and come to your own conclusion. 
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/


----------



## beemandan

HarryVanderpool said:


> irresponsibly insensitive comments .....WHATEVER reason.


I have great sympathy for anyone who loses the source of their livelihood....regardless of the reason. There are bigger issues. There are others whose livelihoods may be impacted. 
I have little doubt that neonics in certain situations are toxic to bees and may even be a source of great bee losses. 
When a beekeeper publicly flaunts the off label use of pesticides in his own hives...at the same time pointing his finger at a farmer who has properly applied pesticides to his crops....then the term irresponsible comes to my mind.
What do you think will happen if the two beekeepers cited in this one sided, closed minded article are shown to be applying off label pesticides to their bees? (Hackenberg on video and Adee fined a few years ago for just such an offense) Worse yet....what if it proves out that they both were potentially at the heart of those bee losses?
From that point forward...every time a beekeeper shouts pesticide kill....the neonic proponents will point to these two beekeepers and no one will look further.
I think we need a different poster child.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Jim and Dan I think you hit it right on the head. I could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

jim lyon said:


> I guess my belief is that it's difficult to flatly state (as Mr. hackenberg does) that all his losses in the past 10 years have been caused by neonics as there are so many variables involved.


Variables, hmmmm, about 10 years ago........ All these time lines co inside with the massive failure of the white check mite strip that the whole industry was banking on working with NO plan B. THE vorroa is the number 1 problem, and the 400 viruses that come with it are the bonus.

PS, remember when they pulled TAKTIC off the market and the great almond shortage just popped right up.


----------



## clyderoad

1700 and 90000 hives are not in the same place at the same times to be exposed to the same elements consistantly. I think that the management of these hives is fairly consistent across the operation though. The common denominator is management in my view. And that is where
the investigation to what's going on should begin.
There is no better time than now to shout pesticide kill. Whether it is, or isn't. Shout neonics and there is instant support.

That lawsuit raises a question in my mind and that is why it isn't a class action suit? 
Notice also the charge is a procedural and accountability one.
Maybe the science isn't convincing enough to pursue an argument directly against the use of neonics?

But, I'm far from an expert regarding any of these matters and thinking out loud here.


----------



## jim lyon

You're right Keith, Check-Mite (coumaphous)is truly evil stuff in a bee hive.....and they still sell it. I just don't get that. Put a strip in and try raising some queen cells and see how you come out, no label says you can't.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

jim lyon said:


> Check-Mite (coumaphous)is truly evil stuff in a bee hive.....and they still sell it. .


Yeah, and Jimbo, there tag line is " WE KNOW BEES" and keepers buy crap from them???


----------



## jim lyon

Ha ha. Yes, occasionally "tag line checks" are a good exercise.


----------



## beemandan

Keith Jarrett said:


> keepers buy crap from them???


Does make ya wonder, doesn't it? Not only are they foolish enough to sell checkmite....but that anyone is crazy enough to put it into their hives. Who can that be....and why?


----------



## Dave Burrup

The companies that sell the crap are bad enough. What amazes me the most are the beekeepers I have talked to, and read posts from that have done very little research into bee keeping and the associated problems. Some are long time beekeepers that know how to keep bees alive, at least enough to stay in business, but actually know little about bees. The philosophy of if an ounce is great lets use a pound may apply to the lead story. A few years ago one of my mentors, a beekeeper of 40 plus years, decided that if one treatment of his shop towel brew worked three should work better. He killed off 2/3 of his hives. He blamed everything but his brew as the cause.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Dave Burrup said:


> The companies that sell the crap are bad enough. What amazes me the most are the beekeepers I have talked to, and read posts from that have done very little research into bee keeping and the associated problems. Some are long time beekeepers that know how to keep bees alive, at least enough to stay in business, but actually know little about bees.


Dave, very well said.


----------



## MNbees

This is a tough one, I just read over most of the posts here and they all seem correct in my opinion. So where does that leave us?
Yes the timeline is sort of true although I think Apistan (fluvalinate) was the more widley used harsh chem that quite working just as coumaphous did. 
But there is a period in time when mites were a problem as they are today, but bees remained healthier than they do today. 
+/- a few years but say 1996 -2005. During these years mites had been a problem for 10+ years. If you did mite treating using what was available and where wililng to try lots of different things like my dad was (meaning not just using one specific treatment). The bees took care of themselves. As he says. 
If I ran the bees today as we did say in 2005 we would have lost %90 also. So then that leaves me to wonder, either the mites are now becoming resistant to non perfect treatments or neonics have something to do with this, well i guess it could be cell phone towers!


----------



## johno

Havent lost any hives this year so far, but have just had a week of very cold weather for my part of the states and now topped off with 2 feet of snow I am sure that this will bring out some losses that I can blame on neonics.
Johno


----------



## Oldtimer

MNbees said:


> But there is a period in time when mites were a problem as they are today, but bees remained healthier than they do today.


Possibly the same as what happened and is happening in my country. Mites arrived, and thresholds of mite numbers were worked out at which point you were supposed to treat. 

But then, the viruses that were in the bee population were transmitted by the mites from bee to bee, and over the years built up to thousands of times higher than natural numbers. The official mite threshold numbers to signal treatment time had to be lowered.

Once bees were thoroughly riddled with massive virus numbers, a kind of winnowing process started happening between the viruses. In my country anyway, testing showed that for the first few years all the DWV strains increased in number. But once massive infestations were the norm and viruses were competing aginst each other the DWV population became almost a monoculture of the most virulent ones.

Official mite treatment thresholds had to be lowered again.

That is why here anyway, mite infestations got deadlier over a few years.


----------



## Ian

it would be interesting to see what our beekeeping conversations would be 10 years from now if Neonics get pulled... 
Pull all Neinics from use! I'll support this cause also if it means no more bee health problems... 
IF the beekeeping industry is going to lead this activist charge, we better get ready for the storm ahead ... Hmmm


----------



## beemandan

Ian said:


> it would be interesting to see what our beekeeping conversations would be 10 years from now if Neonics get pulled...


 I can't seem to keep it straight anymore. Were neonics banned in some parts of Europe? If so, for how long now? 
I agree, if they are part of the issue, even if they were banned tomorrow....it'd be years before the effect would show.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Evolution between a parasite and its host does not always reach and equilibrium. Sometimes the parasite wins. Our mite treatments are very likely selecting for mites with shorter phoretic stages. If the mites spend more of their life span in covered cells they will reproduce more offspring than mites that are exposed to miteacides and allogrooming. I also believe that mites crawling under the abdominal scales will thwart the allogrooming trait. These mites are very adaptable, and coupled with the viruses that are doing their own thing, it is a very rough road. Even the successful TF beekeepers may find that the mites will thwart whatever the mechanism is that lets them be treatment free. The way mites reproduce it only takes one mite to develop a new resistance against the bees or our miteacides, and then *successfully* reproduce that trait to over run a resistance.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ian said:


> it would be interesting to see what our beekeeping conversations would be 10 years from now if Neonics get pulled...


Yes as per Beemandan the experiment has been done, in parts of Europe.

The reason nobody hears anything about the "success" of this is that there was no success. Bee losses have continued unchanged other than local upspikes in bee deaths due to farmers being forced to use older, cruder, nastier poisons.

Course nobody hears about this all them activist have gone quieter than a churchmouse.


----------



## irwin harlton

" Never judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes" I know Dave, he does a lot of pollinating, a likeable,knowledgeable. fellow.Perhaps he spends more time truck driving than beekeeping, I don't know.He probably pollinates where no sane keeper would want to go.He's the poster child, maybe he just don't want to lose that position,this I doubt.All beekeeping, migratory, pollinating, honey is a riskiy buisness ,some more so than others.Its not hard to screw up keeping bees alive, even some of the best in Canada have had their opps, learn their lesson and adjust their management accordingly.Bees are much easier and cheaper to replace in the US verses Canada.Dave pollinate's from the border of Canada to Florida and goes to the Almonds, those bees are under a lot of stress in just moves alone never mind what those little dust mops are dragging home everday.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oldtimer said:


> The reason nobody hears anything about the "success" of this is that there was no success. Bee losses have continued unchanged other than local upspikes in bee deaths due to farmers being forced to use older, cruder, nastier poisons.


I have a friend in the UK who was making 200 lb crops from Neonic OSR. When the UK banned Neonics, the farmer sprayed with something else and the beekeeper lost 80% of his apiary. 

So why are Hack's bees dying in such numbers from Neonics? Maybe it's something else?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well like Ian said maybe they should just pull neonics so they can fix the bees. 

No more bee deaths. Yeah right.


----------



## Oldtimer

And oh, what would happen if these guys win there case, then later, neonics get pulled. But they keep losing bees.

They have to pay back the money?


----------



## beemandan

From another thread...link supplied by Paulemar:

https://archive.apvma.gov.au/news_media/docs/neonicotinoids_overview_report_february_2014.pdf


My take: Australia would seem like a good place to make a determination of neonic problems....as they don't have the issue of varroa to add to the confusion.
If I read this report correctly, there have only been a few reported incidents of neonic poisoning in Australia. In each of those cases, again if I'm reading correctly, these were sprayed applications with the possibility of some not being applied properly.
I didn't see anything suggesting that seed coated crops were a problem.
Is anyone aware of any large scale losses there blamed on neonics?


----------



## JRG13

Dan, seed coated crops were an issue during planting. The coating was not adhesive enough and farmers were probably planting at high speeds which kicked up a lot of coating dust which did kill bees if they were nearby. That issue was addressed during the 2015 planting season, the coating was improved to not create so much dust. The issue at hand should be the exposure during nectar gathering and pollination.


----------



## Oldtimer

I visit Australia as I have family there, and have attended the local bee club over there. 

What comes immediately apparent is that beekeeping at least at a hobby level over there, is a fairly relaxed and carefree thing. Pretty much all those guys have to do is ensure their hives don't get taken out by starvation during a drought. As even a beginner can reasonable easily asses that a hive has almost no honey left, there is nothing particularly complicated about hobby beekeeping in Australia. Long as the hives have food they just keep going and going.

As an aside, even at hobby level a lot of those guys, or at least the ones I met, will throw their hives on a trailer and follow the flow, around various stands of forest that flower at different times. Local knowledge is a big thing and gets a lot of discussion.


----------



## jim lyon

No, I wish we had some Australian commercial operators on here. I remember a neonic activist on here a few years ago who referred to this as the "Australia problem". .


----------



## jim lyon

I stand corrected, it's actually the Australian distraction. 
http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...lian-distraction&highlight=Australian+problem


----------



## Oldtimer

Oh yes I remember poor old Borderbeeman, a very distracted guy.

Complained vehemently about all his own bees being killed by neonics cos his house was surrounded by thousands of acres of corn coated by evil neonics. Till someone locally pointed out there was no corn within many miles of his house. Poor guy had made the whole thing up, wouldn't be the only one.


----------



## beemandan

JRG13 said:


> That issue was addressed during the 2015 planting season, the coating was improved to not create so much dust.


I was aware of that but...those continuing to blame neonics for their losses are still attributing much of it to the seed coated crops...are they not?


----------



## ryan

Hmmm. I'd love to know what chemicals would replace neonics, I think I fear the solution more than the "mysterious problem".

A couple points that were covered earlier:
While having a shop towel in your hive while on 60 minutes is not ideal, that should not be reason to ignore Dave's experiences. If you have ever driven 60mph in a 55mhp zone, it's still OK to support enforcement of other traffic laws. 

Check-mite usage a shock? I suspect it is mostly sold with those corrugated plastic (sold on the same page) that you are supposed to staple up the strips inside so the beetles can get to it but not the bees. I've not heard of anyone using it for mites in well over a decade.

"Home brew killed bees a few years ago" I guess anything is possible. It's just one of those things that I hadn't heard of since the days of Maverick. I've heard of health effects from approved treatments, even more bee kills by mites because of ineffective treatments of any approval level.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Let me ask a leading question...

What would happen to your bees if you picked them up in the middle of the day, when the field force was out foraging?


----------



## beemandan

irwin harlton said:


> " Never judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes"


I get it...he's a likeable guy. 
Plenty of other people might pay a price if a beekeeper yelling neonics without any evidence...or worse yet actually causing his own problems......gets them banned. Who walks in the shoes of the farmer whose production costs rise? Or the folks who developed the pesticide...or produce it.....or sell it? What about their livelihood?
I'm not saying that neonics aren't a problem. I don't know. I am saying that Hackenberg makes a lot of noise but doesn't have much credibility from where I stand.


----------



## beeware10

I also know dave. looking at e-lap payments the larger migratory guys have biggest ccd problems? at least here in the northeast If I were still doing pollination I would cut the pollination in half and leave the other half in stationary yards for honey production. the results would be interesting. we move from ny to sc and see nothing ccd related. If there is any problem with the bees its just something I did wrong,


----------



## beemandan

ryan said:


> While having a shop towel in your hive while on 60 minutes is not ideal


Not ideal?
I am, at best, only a semi smart fellow. Yet I can guarantee you that if sixty minutes appeared on my doorstep with a camera crew and I agreed to open a hive for them....I'd know exactly what they were going to see before doing so. 
I'm not too sure I'd agree with your analogy either. 
I think it's more like concocting your own antibiotics from moldy cheese scrapings....and then blaming the druggist when your kids end up in the hospital with sepsis.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=B05571218


----------



## Dan the bee guy

Michael Palmer said:


> Let me ask a leading question...
> 
> What would happen to your bees if you picked them up in the middle of the day, when the field force was out foraging?


I learned a lot from your videos the one thing that stood out was when you talked about your loses when you pollinated apples add that to improper transport what a mess. The 628dirtrooster on YouTube has some eye opening videos .


----------



## mbevanz

Duplicate


----------



## mbevanz

Michael Palmer said:


> Let me ask a leading question...
> 
> What would happen to your bees if you picked them up in the middle of the day, when the field force was out foraging?


Someone would have some dang mad bees on their hands!


----------



## Michael Palmer

Exactly Keith. Why change your management practices?

Sitting here shaking my head. I know too much. I wish folks that know things, behind the scenes, wouldn't tell me what's really going on. I can't relay information that was told to me in private. Dave has way more problems than CCD and Neonics. 

Why would one of the head CCD investigators say that Dave is the Typhoid Mary of beekeepers? The plot runs deeper than Neonics.


----------



## Michael Palmer

mbevanz said:


> Someone would have some dang mad bees on their hands!



And the results on the health of the colonies?


----------



## mbevanz

Would certainly shift duties around.


Michael Palmer said:


> And the results on the health of the colonies?


----------



## Oldtimer

Keith Jarrett said:


> http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=B05571218


Hmm well the financial returns on hive losses seem to be getting better every year. Can this cow be milked indefinitely, wonder what 2015 was?


----------



## ryan

Beemandan. My point was ,It is a rather high bar disallow someone from asking for rules enforcement if they have ever been in violation of a rule. My analogy is about as accurate as an analogy can be. 

But I'm with you, I would never even talk to 60 minutes.


----------



## beeware10

keith the other pollinators here in the ne is dan winters and jim doan who is dave h's cousin. all e-lap members.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Beeware, they have all type of programs, out west here in the drought they have one for rain, but you have to buy insurance for that, my insurance bill this years is $45,000. I've been on a few of these over the years but never got that kind of dough though. I just don't like all the Bo ho ho, blame somebody else for there problems.


----------



## JRG13

Yes Dan, I was just wanting it to be clear, it's not a direct exposure issue, the issue is the indirect exposure, if any.


----------



## sqkcrk

Keith Jarrett said:


> PS, remember when they pulled TAKTIC off the market and the great almond shortage just popped right up.


Remember the Amitraz based strip that came out between Apistan and Checkmite? Remember what happened to it? Some beekeepers in FL claimed that it killed their hive, so the company discontinued making the product. Anybody know who did that?


----------



## sqkcrk

Keith Jarrett said:


> Yeah, and Jimbo, there tag line is " WE KNOW BEES" and keepers buy crap from them???


Companies still sell menthol crystal baggies too, don't they? Have they ever worked?


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> Who can that be....and why?


Isn't its prescribed use now against SHB?


----------



## sqkcrk

ryan said:


> Hmmm. I'd love to know what chemicals would replace neonics, I think I fear the solution more than the "mysterious problem".


The Organophosphates and pyrethroids we had before neonics came around. They were replaced by neonics because neonics aren't harmful to mammals, like their predecessors are.


----------



## beemandan

ryan said:


> But I'm with you, I would never even talk to 60 minutes.


We can surely agree on that.


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Isn't its prescribed use now against SHB?


Yeah...but I don't believe that they sell enough for that purpose to keep it in the market. 
But...who knows....I've been wrong before.


----------



## sqkcrk

It could be a loss leader. Like an item sold cheaply in a grocery store to get you to patronize the store.


----------



## jim lyon

In fairness, I see Mann Lake still shows Check Mite in their catalog but online it's listed as "currently unavailable". Dadant no longer carries it in their online catalog.


----------



## Roland

I can say that something has changed in the last 10 years, more so in the last 5. Prior to that time it was very rare to loose a hive NOT in winter. Now it is common to loose hives in spring and summer. As someone's wise tag states, suspect mites first. We did so, and could not associate hive loss with mites. The losses where way too sudden, like a whole yard in a week. We also see a very wide variation between yards. One might loose one of 36, the next 35 of 36. More clues are that the strong hives fail first, and if a yard is suddenly set back, the live hives due recover. That does not fit a mite scenario. We have also found a correlation between a late frost with weeds blooming in the alfalfa and hives losses.

From the above, we are also looking at pyrethroids used to treat alfalfa weevils. There has not been any association with neonicitinoid seed treatments.

Crazy Roland


----------



## beeware10

Its kind of the more ya know the more confused ya get. all of our top research people are trying but no real answer yet. Is it spray or beekeepers? for a university to come up with a real answer there will be a gold mine of grants but still no answers. I remember the problems 7 caused back in the 70's and we don't want that.


----------



## Michael Palmer

sqkcrk said:


> Remember the Amitraz based strip that came out between Apistan and Checkmite? Remember what happened to it? Some beekeepers in FL claimed that it killed their hive, so the company discontinued making the product. Anybody know who did that?


Actually, the amitraz varroa strip came before Apistan. And some strips did kill some bees. But...

There was a cattle collar with amitraz used to kill ticks. The ticks eventually became resistant to amitraz. The company had all these cattle amitraz collars...

Yep, they sold them to beekeepers and it was those strips that killed bees. The company took the varroa strip off the market.


----------



## sqkcrk

One thing that David Hackenberg said to me concerning University Research is "You'll only get to do the research they let you do." Or something like that. They being those that fill the coffers.

When work was being done on the NYS Pollinator Protection Plan a Cornell employee spoke to the Task Force about "The Ontario Plan" and neonics. It's my understanding that their boss got a visit from the Ag Chem Reps that served on the Task Force. They were not happy.

USDA Scientist, Jonathan Lundgren, has been in hot water for revealing his work.

What does anyone really think is going to happen in the fight to try to figure out what is going on with our bees? In whose interest is it that answers are found? Follow the money.


----------



## Ian

Oldtimer said:


> Well like Ian said maybe they should just pull neonics so they can fix the bees.
> 
> No more bee deaths. Yeah right.


Thats what I want! Let's go back to the days of easy beekeeping, plentiful hives and big yields.


----------



## davidsbees

I guess no one has seen Judy wu's presentation on sub-lethal doses of nic's on honey bees it was eye opening. The bees I ran in the foot hills had a less than 5% winter loss, bees around intense valley Ag 20-30% winter loss. Same management. Had one load of out of state bee that fell apart (ks) the other one is great (or). Did a mite check on the bad load guess what no mites.


----------



## Ian

That's what I'm saying David, let's pull those Neinics, let's get our Beekeeping industry back... FROM BIG AG


----------



## sqkcrk

Good luck with that, Ian.


----------



## zhiv9

beemandan said:


> .
> Is anyone aware of any large scale losses there blamed on neonics?


There have been large scale losses in Ontario attributed to neonic coated seed. Acute losses during planting (this is relatively easy to prove causation), and both in season losses and high winter mortality that is attributed to chronic exposure. Chronic exposure is an incredibly tough thing to prove, but there is some broad correlating data. Winter losses started to take a jump here in 2006/2007 season shortly after the widespread use of neonic coated seed in Ontario. See the chart in figure 1: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/food/inspection/bees/2014winterloss.htm. 2015 average winter losses were 38%



JRG13 said:


> The coating was not adhesive enough and farmers were probably planting at high speeds which kicked up a lot of coating dust which did kill bees if they were nearby. That issue was addressed during the 2015 planting season, the coating was improved to not create so much dust. The issue at hand should be the exposure during nectar gathering and pollination.


In this area the proposed solution was a new seed lubricant. Early reports were that it reduced the amount of dust by about 30% (not exactly eliminating it), but caused it to cast further. Due to longer winters and later springs, corn planting hasn't correlated with good flying weather, so no one really knows how much the new lubricant helps.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> What does anyone really think is going to happen in the fight to try to figure out what is going on with our bees? In whose interest is it that answers are found? Follow the money.


Of course, but as this thread points out, there are many potential financial incentives at play here. Are you referring to corporate profits, government payments or private lawsuits. Last I checked there were no deep pockets on varroa destructor.


----------



## beemandan

My original question was if anyone knew of large scale losses in Australia.
Without the issue of varroa...I think that an objective look at neonic losses might be simpler there.
Again....I don't have an opinion.


----------



## deknow

Ian said:


> That's what I'm saying David, let's pull those Neinics, let's get our Beekeeping industry back... FROM BIG AG


Without some idea or plan of what will replace the neonics, and some idea of the impact on the bees vs the impact that is being attributed to the neonics, I don't see how this helps anything. Is the pesticide to replace neonics not going to come from bug ag? Will it be local, artisanal pesticides?


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> Of course, but as this thread points out, there are many potential financial incentives at play here. Are you referring to corporate profits, government payments or private lawsuits. Last I checked there were no deep pockets on varroa destructor.


I was eluding to the influence which chemical companies have over research done at Universities.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Without some idea or plan of what will replace the neonics, and some idea of the impact on the bees vs the impact that is being attributed to the neonics, I don't see how this helps anything. Is the pesticide to replace neonics not going to come from bug ag? Will it be local, artisanal pesticides?


While sitting next to an AgChem Rep at a meeting of the NYS Pollinator Protection Task Force I asked him what Systemics (That's what neonics are, a systemic pesticide.) replaced and why. He said that they replaced Organophosphates and Pyrethroids because those materials harm mammals. So, get rid of the Systemic pesticides and what's the choice? Go back to the previous chemicals? 

I wonder what the folks at Dow and Monsanto are working on.


----------



## deknow

> I wonder what the folks at Dow and Monsanto are working on.


...that's an easy one. They are looking to keep selling the products they have on the market as long as possible....until resistance is a problem (before the patents run out...a generic pesticide isn't worth much if the pests are already resistant). ....then they introduce the next generation.

It is notable (very notable) that despite monsantos reputation for aggressively enforcing many aspects of the planting of their products, there is no case that I'm aware of that they tried to enforce the planting guidelines that would help forestall resistance.
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/playing-god-in-the-garden/


----------



## Michael Bush

>He said that they replaced Organophosphates and Pyrethroids because those materials harm mammals.

Sprays that go on the outside of the plant and can harm mammals and were replaced by neonics which permeate the entire plant (including the parts we mammals eat) and can ALSO harm mammals...


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> ....then they introduce the next generation.


Which they must be working on now, right? That's what I was wondering about. What is the next generation ag chem?


----------



## jim lyon

Dean is on the mark here. I suppose my point of view is skewed a bit because my views have been forever marked by experiences back in the "good ole days" in my early years of beekeeping and having seen whole apiaries virtually wiped out by massive foliar spraying. I've seen the piles of dead bees and smelled the stink of rotting brood, I've even seen dead birds nearby and heard reports of small animals killed. 
Now we are quibbling about whether there is low dose exposure and whether that could possibly kill a hive. To me it's a bit like comparing the high highway death rates of the 60's era muscle cars to today's fatalities from accidental airbag deployments. Sure, nobody wants to kill bees but just remember, farmers will always do what is necessary to prevent insect damage to their crops and killing the "bad" insects without damaging the desirable ones is pretty tricky business. People need to be careful what they wish for or they might just get it, Mr. Palmers story about the loss related to him after the neonic ban in Europe wasn't just made up. It's easy to be against something but real solutions can be complicated.


----------



## BjornH

From a outsider ( 100+ non migrating hives in forest/cattle/agricultural are with "only" varroa to fight, in Sweden Scandinavia, Europe)
In a scenario when 40000+ beehives dies leading to 400 000-800 000 frames ..maybe with a lethal dose of some chemical ( 2 " beefriendly substances can interact and become lethal)..Brought in with the bees or applied in apparently wrong dose by the beekepeer)
Where does that wax go? 
Saving money and keeping viseble good frames and shake bees in eventually more contaminated wax then maybe get from bought could give you bad delayed outcome ( dead bees again) since starting levels are higer than "fresh" wax.. 
The chemistry between the X-cides and some anti-varroasubstances can get us all crazy in the end. I think that is the problem that gives us so diffrent outcome in diffrent areas of the world. Neonics and some brand of fungiceds can be a killer ( in short or long term) but neonics and other fungicide just make us lose a generation of foragers.. and of course, if you sell some shakes from the hives for extra money ( i sell some packages during summer myself) and deplete them even more..


----------



## beemandan

deknow said:


> . there is no case that I'm aware of that they tried to enforce the planting guidelines that would help forestall resistance.


Pretty hard to enforce guidelines. 
Make no mistake...I'm not a fan of monsanto...but I know the difference between guidelines and contractual agreements.


----------



## zhiv9

beemandan said:


> My original question was if anyone knew of large scale losses in Australia.
> Without the issue of varroa...I think that an objective look at neonic losses might be simpler there.
> Again....I don't have an opinion.


Sorry, didn't realize that it was a question about Australia specifically. Does Australia have a good system for reporting pesticide kills? In Ontario, if a beekeeper has a pesticide kill, he reports it to the PMRA (EPA equivalent), they will come out with a provincial bee inspector. The inspector will evaluate the colony(s) for disease help the PMRA collect data for the incident report. This is at no charge to the beekeeper. I don't think this is the case in the US? Certainly not in every state. Without a good system of reporting, how does anyone even know how widespread the problem is?


----------



## deknow

beemandan said:


> Pretty hard to enforce guidelines.
> Make no mistake...I'm not a fan of monsanto...but I know the difference between guidelines and contractual agreements.


These are more than guidelines....they are required by law.

I don't know much about corn farming, but I've never heard anyone talk about planting a refuge, and I've never heard anyone talk about non treated corn being in a mix with coated seed.


----------



## zhiv9

deknow said:


> Without some idea or plan of what will replace the neonics, and some idea of the impact on the bees vs the impact that is being attributed to the neonics, I don't see how this helps anything. Is the pesticide to replace neonics not going to come from bug ag? Will it be local, artisanal pesticides?


What about IPM? Everything isn't always black and white. There has to be some middle ground between a total ban and 100% prophylactic use. Just like with our own acaricides, constant prophylactic use, leads to faster pest resistance. Targeted use should extend the effective life of neonics.

The Ontario program that begins a staged introduction this planting season is essentially regulated/enforced IPM. 

Quebec offered(offers) subsidies for practicing IPM, but participation rates were low and availability of untreated seed was poor.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Without some idea or plan of what will replace the neonics, and some idea of the impact on the bees vs the impact that is being attributed to the neonics, I don't see how this helps anything. Is the pesticide to replace neonics not going to come from bug ag? Will it be local, artisanal pesticides?


EXACTLY ! This is simply not a product issue, as David pointed out, 20-30% loss in the Ag Valley. Why those losses?? Neonic? Broadcast poison? Mono culture + no forage >> mal nutrition? We all know the problems our current ag system prespires, it's been 80 years in the making.

10 years from now, with Neinics pulled, we are going to be having the same conversation with the same alarm bells being rung and the same poster children, just attacking a different headline problem.


MY solution ?!?

How about we re direct all this energy and attention back down to solving solutions that are achievable and will show actual short term response.
Needless ditch spraying is the obvious compromise to farmers... The countryside is being completely taken away from nature, we are not going to stop that. But we can lay claim on our government ditches... It would be a small victory but it yields great dividends. I have antidotal proof of it within my apiary. 

HAve BIG AG flip the bill for a ditch wild flower establishment program. Modify ditch mowers to preserve the flowers. Our bees thrive, bumble bees thrive, native bees thrive.

OR we can follow the Hack on his forever campaign to dismantle BiG AG as we know it. Let's leave that job for the activists...


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Ian said:


> MY solution ?!?


Don't go to the valley.


----------



## jim lyon

Keith Jarrett said:


> Don't go to the valley.


Keith can say more in 5 words.......


----------



## Ian

Keith Jarrett said:


> Don't go to the valley.


Yup that's one solution

But I make 100% of my income off Big AG, with crops, livestock and from what my bees forage on.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> Keith can say more in 5 words.......


It applies to only a group of Beekeepers.


----------



## jwcarlson

From:
http://www.pollinator.org/PDFs/OPERAReport.pdf



> So far, none of the pesticide-related
> bee monitoring approaches found a
> clear connection between bee colony
> mortality as a general phenomenon
> and the exposure of bees to pesticides.
> 
> France
> One of the most extensive monitoring approaches is
> being conducted in France to survey the bee safety of the
> thiamethoxam seed treatment in maize. The implemented
> survey is aimed at evaluating the potential side-effects of the
> use of coated seeds on pollinating insects, and more particularly
> on the honey bee.
> This survey was implemented over 3 years, covered 3 to 6 regions and involved several monitoring sites
> for each region. Sites had intensive maize cultivation grown from either treated or non-treated maize
> seeds. Apiaries were settled before sowing and remained until overwintering. Final data indicated a very
> low exposure of bees to residues of thiamethoxam over the entire growth period, and highlighted no
> product-related effect on colonies, even after several years of cohabitation





> 2001 is the turning point where better honey prices for European producers and the support program financed
> by the European Commission began to strongly influence the stocks. Prior to 2007 there was a strong increase
> in the total number of beehives. Since 2007, the lower price of honey has a negative influence on the profitability
> of beekeeping, generating a strong decrease in the number of beehives almost to the level of 2001.
> The data suggest that there is a strong correlation between the number of beehives and the prices
> of honey and other apicultural products.





> To date, the outcome of the reported multifactorial monitoring projects seems to suggest that the
> parasitic mite V. destructor is the main causative factor involved in honey bee colony mortality in Europe;
> about this conclusion there seems to be consensus in the vast majority of the scientific community


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Michael Bush said:


> >He said that they replaced Organophosphates and Pyrethroids because those materials harm mammals.
> 
> Sprays that go on the outside of the plant and can harm mammals and were replaced by neonics which permeate the entire plant (including the parts we mammals eat) and can ALSO harm mammals...


This illustrates a total lack of even rudimentary understanding of the pesticide registration process as well as the whole field of toxicology. Yes, in large amounts all chemicals can kill you. That includes water and oxygen. Just drink a gallon and a half of water in an hour and a half and see how dead you are after a very short period of feeling really rotten. Several people per year die in the US from drinking too much water. More are hospitalized and barely survive. Just because an overdose will kill you does not mean a smaller dose will harm you in any way. In fact that smaller dose can even be essential to survival. The whole registration process for pesticides is aimed at establishing safe doses for the environment, for the pesticide applicator and for the consumer. The people that do such evaluations are a lot smarter at what they are doing then a bunch of monday morning quarter backs that do not even bother to try and understand the registration process.


----------



## D Coates

deknow said:


> Without some idea or plan of what will replace the neonics, and some idea of the impact on the bees vs the impact that is being attributed to the neonics, I don't see how this helps anything. Is the pesticide to replace neonics not going to come from bug ag? Will it be local, artisanal pesticides?


Artisanal pesticides? With the amount of time and money required to follow current respective govt. regulations the only way "Big Ag" can make a buck is to sell it in huge markets. Artisanal markets are too small and offer no RIO (return on investment). Keep in mind also "Big Ag" comes up with hundreds of products annually that fail long before they ever get to market. That's lost money, down the drain it goes. They've got to have enough winners to keep their doors open and when they do have one they defend it aggressively (I would too).

If "Big Ag" is ever dismantled the way some people want to, then you'll see all types of untested homebrews showing up. Then there'll be something to complain about.


As for the article? "Neonics are up to 10,000 times more dangerous that DDT. Enough said."

Where's the evidence for this claim? I'm trying to read this with an open mind but when I see unsubstantiated ludicrous claims my BS radar begins to howl. The "Enough said" appears to have been added by the reporter too. A reporter is supposed to report the facts. "Neonics are up to 10,000 time more dangerous than DDT" is not a proven fact, it's speculation. "Enough said."? Well, that's what someone who's low on defendable information says when they no longer want to hear anything that doesn't support their position. 

To me, this is a well written piece of propaganda masquerading as a news article. My ill informed mother-in-law will swallow this hook line and sinker. I'll undoubtedly get this "news article" from her and I'll spend 1/2 an hour at our next meeting explaining how this wasn't news and why. Hackenberg is the pawn being used in an attempt to give credibility to this "News."


----------



## Dominic

Ian said:


> EXACTLY ! This is simply not a product issue, as David pointed out, 20-30% loss in the Ag Valley. Why those losses?? Neonic? Broadcast poison? Mono culture + no forage >> mal nutrition? We all know the problems our current ag system prespires, it's been 80 years in the making.
> 
> 10 years from now, with Neinics pulled, we are going to be having the same conversation with the same alarm bells being rung and the same poster children, just attacking a different headline problem.
> 
> 
> MY solution ?!?
> 
> How about we re direct all this energy and attention back down to solving solutions that are achievable and will show actual short term response.
> Needless ditch spraying is the obvious compromise to farmers... The countryside is being completely taken away from nature, we are not going to stop that. But we can lay claim on our government ditches... It would be a small victory but it yields great dividends. I have antidotal proof of it within my apiary.
> 
> HAve BIG AG flip the bill for a ditch wild flower establishment program. Modify ditch mowers to preserve the flowers. Our bees thrive, bumble bees thrive, native bees thrive.
> 
> OR we can follow the Hack on his forever campaign to dismantle BiG AG as we know it. Let's leave that job for the activists...





> Here we demonstrate that the current focus on exposure to pesticides via the crop overlooks an important factor: throughout spring and summer, mixtures of neonicotinoids are also found in the pollen and nectar of wildflowers growing in arable field margins, *at concentrations that are sometimes even higher than those found in the crop*. Indeed, the large majority *(97%) of neonicotinoids brought back in pollen to honey bee hives in arable landscapes was from wildflowers, not crops*.


Ditch flowers aren't really the amazing solution they are put off to be. When treated seeds are put in the ground, most of the pesticide is washed off, and heads to the ditches where the wildflower perennials can more readily absorb it than the crop seedlings could.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> MY solution ?!?
> 
> How about we re direct all this energy and attention back down to solving solutions that are achievable and will show actual short term response.
> Needless ditch spraying is the obvious compromise to farmers... The countryside is being completely taken away from nature, we are not going to stop that. But we can lay claim on our government ditches... It would be a small victory but it yields great dividends. I have antidotal proof of it within my apiary.
> 
> HAve BIG AG flip the bill for a ditch wild flower establishment program. Modify ditch mowers to preserve the flowers. Our bees thrive, bumble bees thrive, native bees thrive.
> 
> OR we can follow the Hack on his forever campaign to dismantle BiG AG as we know it. Let's leave that job for the activists...


From what I have seen in NY all of these solutions are window dressing, they won't change the paradigm in a truely beneficial way as the paradigm has been changed over the last 30 years. I'm sure that I don't have a clear view of the whole picture. I'm not sure that there is anyone who does.


----------



## zhiv9

Update on Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Bee Health: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/neonicotinoid/neonicotinoid-eng.php

Corn Growing Regions of Canada (1 red dot = 5000 acres)








Reported bee incidents attributed to neonics (acute or chronic)


----------



## B&E

This is one interesting thread for sure. 

I can truthfully say, I have never been more fickle about anything in my life as I am on this neonic issue. There are so many sides to this and so many factors that need to be looked at. It really isn't black and white on any side. 

Firstly, I'd like to say that I am surprised by the way beeks feel like they can come on here and slam other beeks. Why do that? The internet makes people bold I know. Having a argument and degrading another human without actually having to look them in the eye is easy eh? It's pretty low, and you know it. So let's get away from that...shall we? I don't see anyone on here bashing Mendes. Why? Cause we all respect him. Yet he has been pretty vocal on this topic in the past too.

Anyway, it has to be remembered that some beeks are big because they know the value of their asset, which is their hives. They didn't get big to get money from a program. They got big because they wanted to make money from bees, and figured out that having lots of live hives was a good way to do it. So to accuse the big beeks of not caring about their bees isn't fair. I'm not saying guys make the right choices all the time, but it simply isn't true that guys like the ones we are discussing don't know how to keep bees alive.

Being from ON I'm at the hotbed of this issue. Why is that? Well in spring 2012 there were thousands of hives that good decimated from dust while planting. That's a fact. Not a myth. No one is disputing that, not even Randy O or Bayer.

At that time no one here even knew what a neonic was, nor could we pronounce it properly without looking stupid.  However, there were plenty of us that didn't see the same issues. But that was mostly because of geography and the time in which some of us got our bees out of areas which would have been problematic. (we moved for pollination). Being on the OBA BOD I have been heavily involved in the process for the past 4 years, and can truthfully say I have not always been supportive of the direction the board has gone. In fact, I was the Canadian Honey council delegate for one year, and was removed by our BOD from that position because I wasn't hard line anti-neonic enough from the majority of the BOD. 

In the past 4 years I have read more studies and been exposed to more research that I ever thought possible. Which makes me so fickle. I see good studies on both sides. Someone like Krupke, isn't stupid. His research is real. But someone like Randy, (and others) who are pro neonic, find results that would support systemics. I don't know what to believe.

Myself, I have not seen anything in my bees (we run many thousands) that I can say is certainly neonic damage. But I have definitely seen with my own eyes acute damage in my friends hives, many times. (planting dust) What remains confusing are the claims of chronic damage. There are 2 beeks in ON who are suing Bayer as well. (*I don't support that action)* Both of these guys are quiet and soft spoken, and have a long history of keeping bees alive. They're not the guys that desire publicity and want to be in the papers. But, I'm not saying they're correct at all in their assumptions to why their bees continue to die. They are in heavy corn in soy areas, and are both used to making good crops. 

Like Roland, It's the summer loses that has me confused. Why are the bees dying off in season, and at quite high rates? I can tell you, it's certainly not because I'm after a money grab that we lose 20% plus during that summer, because there is way more money in having those bees alive. So let's not go down that path. I know of not one single beek in Canada using off label mite treatments, so that isn't the issue. But I'm also not convince it's neonics either. 

Here are some facts:

-Guys that used to have very low loses started to get very high loses consistently since 2007.

- 2003 was the first time bees went from ON to the Maritimes for blueberry pollination, and the number of loads moving have increased substantially every year since then. This brings with it a desire to make early splits in the season with imported queens to get max number of hives to the blueberry fields in late may. Could the mid season loses be from crap we picked up in the blueberry fields?? Lots of guys are losing bees that don't do to blueberries too.

- the date of increased demand for blueberry hives also mirrors the exponential upward use of neonics on all crops, BUT also mirrors the upward price trend on cash crops. As we all know vast areas of marginal land have been converted to crop land and in most areas it's corn and soy. This also perfectly mirrors BSE in Canada and much pasture and hay land being lost due to very low cattle prices. 

So really I don't know why I am writing all of this. Mostly just to say I'm so confused. Am I making very good money in bees? yes. Would I be doing way better without these continued loses? Absolutely! Are our mite levels really low? yup, we have never tested over 3% in the past 5 years. Can I point the finger at neonics? not really.

a couple of more facts:

-neonics show up in pollen of many plants, including corn and soy. But most studies show that it is below the levels that kill bees. Whatever that means. 

-yes, neonics have replaced more "hardcore" pesticides, at least we are told they are not too hardcore. (Did OP's show up on corn pollen that bees forage? When a whole crap load of bees got killed from a spray incident, did they bring that chemical back to the hive and store it in the pollen and bee bread? that's what happens with neonics. )

- we all know that bees do better on a great flow in mid to late summer. This is what the guys in AB and SK and MB who have because of the gazillion acres of canola have...a great flow every year. There are also a gazillion tons of neonics on canola, but no one out there seems to be complaining of mid season loses or exceptionally high winter loses. Is this because neonics "don't kill bees"? Is it because the strong flow helps the bees "clean up" and not fall prey to the many virus and that are effecting hives in "non flow" areas? 

I don't friggin' know! But I want to! 

I will continue to keep bees, and it seems as though I'll continue to do it successfully without without a ban. (which by the way I am not advocating for) But there is no doubt that many things changed since the mid 2000's, and I for one would actually like to know what it is. I mean really know. Not just guess.

I hope my points were clear. I am not calling for a ban on anything. I am not into slamming people online. And I don't think we are in the middle of a beepocalypse, but it is not as easy to keep bees alive as it was 10 years ago, and I believe there are many reasons for that. One which could very well be neonics, but I don't think it's the only smoking gun.


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> Yup that's one solution
> 
> But I make 100% of my income off Big AG, with crops, livestock and from what my bees forage on.


ditto!

the sad part is that no one side has been well represented. Beeks are suing, bleeding hearts are crying in the papers, and pro neonic beeks are accusing questioning beeks of being poor beekeepers or money grabbing swine. 

The most important things for me right now is to keep my bees alive, and keep good relationships with land owners and also big ag. Without pollination, or places to put our bees for honey, they might as well be dead.


----------



## Ian

Dominic said:


> Ditch flowers aren't really the amazing solution they are put off to be. When treated seeds are put in the ground, most of the pesticide is washed off, and heads to the ditches where the wildflower perennials can more readily absorb it than the crop seedlings could.


Perhaps, but your drawing the conclusion that there is a massive movement of neonic out of the soil and also making the assumption the ditch plants will take it up and express enough of it to harm foraging insects. Studies in Sask show out of soil movement in extremely small accumulations in run off areas.


----------



## Ian

B&E said:


> ditto!
> 
> the sad part is that no one side has been well represented. Beeks are suing, bleeding hearts are crying in the papers, and pro neonic beeks are accusing questioning beeks of being poor beekeepers or money grabbing swine.
> 
> The most important things for me right now is to keep my bees alive, and keep good relationships with land owners and also big ag. Without pollination, or places to put our bees for honey, they might as well be dead.


Well said, ... And without slamming any name


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> From what I have seen in NY all of these solutions are window dressing,


It's not window dressing here. My energy to preserve my RM ditch flowers has been more productive to the ACTUAL health of my hives. How much energy had gone into fighting Big AG? To what outcome?? Still 90% losses!


----------



## RichardsonTX

Could the queen stock be the cause of some of these losses? For example, queens that have mated with drone stock that has a lot of AHB genetics might be producing stock that can't withstand cold climates.


----------



## winevines

Keith Jarrett said:


> http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=B05571218


Well that is interesting. Can you only search this database on farmer name? Or can you search on crop?


----------



## JRG13

Dominic, if you're planting and then watering the field with so much water, it runs off and fills ditches, you're extremely bad at farming, just saying. Zhiv, I liked your pictures, is there one with Canola represented? B & E, some good points. I'm on the fence as well, but I don't think definitive correlation is being made anywhere which makes the issue that much tougher. How are the EU bees doing since the 2 year ban? Also, hasn't the last few winters been extremely tough in some of the Canadian areas in question? The only issue I have with Zhiv's over lay, is bees do not work field corn heavily, unless it's the only thing around to work I guess, which then leads to perhaps a nutrition factor during key forage months. I had my first colony near 20 acres of Pioneer experimental plots, they sprayed it weekly and it wasn't pleasant stuff, and who knows what kind of seed treatment was on it. Although the field sounded like it was buzzing, you didn't see many bees actually working the stuff, but plant some sweet corn and they'll be all over those tassles.


----------



## winevines

This video (I think from 2015) presents some very interesting things going on with bees and commercial pollinators- things many of us would never has considered if we've never done it. It is from the perspective of a State Apiarist from a State that brings in commercial pollinators. 
If you are short on time, skip to about minute 50. And thanks to the folks in NJ who post lots of great videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0rC8KnwET8


----------



## D Coates

Thanks for posting that Karla. Interesting listen.


----------



## zhiv9

JRG13 said:


> is there one with Canola represented?


No, some grain farmers in southern Ontario have Canola in their rotation, but the bulk of canola is grown further north or out west where the growing season is shorter. My best performing yard this year was right next to a canola field. My thoughts on Canola have pretty much followed, B&E's - that the strong flow and excellent nutrition provided by canola negate the toxic effects or make it easier for the bees to detoxify any low level neonic exposure



JRG13 said:


> Also, hasn't the last few winters been extremely tough in some of the Canadian areas in question?


We have had a couple of long winters, but that doesn't take us back to 2006/2007 when the problems started.



JRG13 said:


> The only issue I have with Zhiv's over lay, is bees do not work field corn heavily, unless it's the only thing around to work I guess, which then leads to perhaps a nutrition factor during key forage months.


It seems more likely that the lower level exposure is coming from more attractive plants on the edges of fields. There is the possible spread through groundwater as well as the dust contaminating surface water sources. I never see bees working either corn or beans in this area.


----------



## Dominic

Ian said:


> Perhaps, but your drawing the conclusion that there is a massive movement of neonic out of the soil and also making the assumption the ditch plants will take it up and express enough of it to harm foraging insects. Studies in Sask show out of soil movement in extremely small accumulations in run off areas.


Neonics are extremely water soluble, mobile, and persistent. Do they accumulate? Under some circumstances, yes, though how widely I don't know. They do leech, though, otherwise Québec's environment ministry wouldn't have found it in concentrations surpassing the limits in nearly all sampled rivers. That wasn't the point of the article in question, though, which was about distribution and concentration in flora, not in soil. Presentations from various scientists in Québec have often repeated that the treated plants only absorb a small proportion of the insecticide, and most of it is leeched off, because growth at that stage is minimal. I don't have access to the full article right now to verify what mechanisms for wildflower uptake are in action for their concentrations to often be higher, but I don't think it's a stretch to assume that during planting, established perennials would be more aptly able to draw up any water solubles, such as neonics, than seedlings would.

Are the concentrations dangerously high? Maybe, maybe not. Issues don't limit themselves to acute toxicity, and chronic toxicity is much harder to properly evaluate. However, the one thing it does is show that crops aren't the only issue, which shows how absolutely ridiculous the latest EPA assessment on imidacloprid (and how Canada's new position) are outrageously incomplete: you can't just look at the concentration of the pesticide in the crop's nectar to determine if the product is safe or not when 97% of the imported neonics didn't come from the treated crops themselves, but rather by the leaching off treated crops onto wildflowers, where the concentrations are often higher than in the crop itself. I also don't have access to the article right now to see just how high the concentrations got in those wild flower samples, and if they surpassed the amount required for observable harm.



JRG13 said:


> Dominic, if you're planting and then watering the field with so much water, it runs off and fills ditches, you're extremely bad at farming, just saying. Zhiv, I liked your pictures, is there one with Canola represented? B & E, some good points. I'm on the fence as well, but I don't think definitive correlation is being made anywhere which makes the issue that much tougher. How are the EU bees doing since the 2 year ban? Also, hasn't the last few winters been extremely tough in some of the Canadian areas in question? The only issue I have with Zhiv's over lay, is bees do not work field corn heavily, unless it's the only thing around to work I guess, which then leads to perhaps a nutrition factor during key forage months. I had my first colony near 20 acres of Pioneer experimental plots, they sprayed it weekly and it wasn't pleasant stuff, and who knows what kind of seed treatment was on it. Although the field sounded like it was buzzing, you didn't see many bees actually working the stuff, but plant some sweet corn and they'll be all over those tassles.


Did I say anything about watering a field? Did the article? Irrigation wasn't mentionned, much less drenching. I'm talking about rain. Not record-breaking floods, either, just normal seasonal precipitations.

As above, the problem with corn isn't (mostly) with the concentrations in the pollen, despite what some of the half-wits at the regulatory agencies try to claim. The problem is that corn is an annual that is planted as early in the season as possible, despite needing a lot of heat for vigorous growth, when heavy precipitations are common, and right when important bee plants are blooming (dandelion). The neonics get leeched off the seed (for the most part) and go to the ditches where the dandelions and other perennials are, and then when the bees forage those they get their shot of neonics. Plus, since they are addictive, the neonics encourage the bees to forage the contaminated parcels over clean ones. Meanwhile, the crop (corn), that represent the majority of the surfaces, offers next to nothing to the bees in compensation, other than a very un-nutritious pollen. Canola, in comparison, offers a lot of nectar and very nutritious pollen. And while corn requires a lot of heat to start germinating and growing, canola requires much less, thus probably absorbs a great portion of the neonics. And that's not to mention fall-seeded canola, where the colonies are already strong and where the laced nectar is probably going into what the beekeeper is going to harvest as honey, and thus exported from the hive.


----------



## JRG13

That article didn't mention any corn, only canola. Also, there were a lot of inconsistencies in data and reporting that the comments and response to the comments discuss which just leads to a bunch of speculation from both parties, no real science.


----------



## sqkcrk

" I don't see anyone on here bashing Mendes. Why? Cause we all respect him. Yet he has been pretty vocal on this topic in the past too."

You don't see anyone bashing Dave Mendes, because A. He wasn't a subject of the article under review. B. No one is bashing anyone. C. Dave Mendes doesn't own any bees anymore.

"But someone like Randy, (and others) who are pro neonic, find results that would support systemics. I don't know what to believe."

I think Randy Oliver would find it interesting to learn that he is proneonic. I believe that he would dispute that claim and say that he is proscience and interested in finding the truth of the matter before making declarations.

B&E, how do you like the Ontario Pollinator Protection Plan? Do you think it is going to help protect bees and beekeepers in Ontario?


----------



## B&E

sqkcrk: with regards to my comment on Randy. I wasn't using proneonic as a negative term. Just an observation. I have spoken with him at length. He has made many comments supporting the use the neonics and is even featured on a video on Bayer's website. I haven't heard or seen written anything by him that would suggest limiting their use. That being said, I have not read the ABJ's from 2015 yet. That sounds pretty pro. And again, that's not a dirty term, although most guys in the beekeeping world read it as an insult. And yes, he is pro science I agree.

Are you referring to the new plan that was released on Friday? I haven't actually had a chance to read all of it yet. However, I don't see how reducing the use of any insecticide, neonic or not, can be bad for bees and pollinators.

I know a farmer who has gone back to conventional beans exclusively. (4000 acres) Not because he is "trying to save the bees" but because he "used to make more money and was a better farmer" when he saved his own seeds and paid closer attention to what is going on in his fields, rather than relying on the miracle powers of Cruiser MAX!


----------



## zhiv9

sqkcrk said:


> I think Randy Oliver would find it interesting to learn that he is proneonic. I believe that he would dispute that claim and say that he is proscience and interested in finding the truth of the matter before making declarations.


There are a lot of pro-science beekeepers (I am certainly one of them). Unfortunately, the science always lags the situation on the ground. The beekeepers who aren't effected by neonics have lots of time to wait for the body of evidence to strongly swing one way or the other. The beekeepers who feel that their large scale losses are caused by neonics don't want to or can't wait for conclusive proof. So how much evidence is enough evidence to employ the precautionary principle? We are coming up on 10 years already - will it take another 10 before we have the conclusive proof?


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> My energy to preserve my RM ditch flowers has been more productive to the ACTUAL health of my hives.


How do you measure the results?

In NY State the NYS Highway Authority does a lot, and has done a lot over the last ten years, to preserve, promote, and maintain plants that are beneficial to pollinating insects. Which NYS Beekeepers maintain is what the State should do to help protect pollinators and help produce better honey crops. Whether there is any evidence of cause and effect is not known. I don't know how anyone would figure that out.

So, by window dressing I mean that the State is doing what beekeepers say it aught to to enhance forage without any evidence that what people assume is correct or not.


----------



## Dave Burrup

I guess I would be called pro neonic too. Where I live I would not be able to raise bees before neonics. The way they sprayed to control aphids and Colorado Potato Beetle, every 7-10 days with airplanes emitting fogs of organophospates and carbamates, bees had no chance. Neonics are not great, but they are way better than what they replaced.


----------



## sqkcrk

RichardsonTX said:


> Could the queen stock be the cause of some of these losses? For example, queens that have mated with drone stock that has a lot of AHB genetics might be producing stock that can't withstand cold climates.


I don't know about Adee's Winter apiaries, but Hackenberg's are in GA or FL, so whether their queens can or can't withstand cold climates is moot.


----------



## sqkcrk

B&E said:


> Are you referring to the new plan that was released on Friday? I haven't actually had a chance to read all of it yet. However, I don't see how reducing the use of any insecticide, neonic or not, can be bad for bees and pollinators.


That's probably the one. I only knew that it was proposed, not whether it was coming out or had come out. We have a young lady here in NY, at Cornell University, who worked on the plan. Emma Mullen. Perhaps you know her?


----------



## sqkcrk

zhiv9 said:


> There are a lot of pro-science beekeepers (I am certainly one of them). Unfortunately, the science always lags the situation on the ground. The beekeepers who aren't effected by neonics have lots of time to wait for the body of evidence to strongly swing one way or the other. The beekeepers who feel that their large scale losses are caused by neonics don't want to or can't wait for conclusive proof. So how much evidence is enough evidence to employ the precautionary principle? We are coming up on 10 years already - will it take another 10 before we have the conclusive proof?


How much sway do you have with those who can employ the precautionary principles? It is often said, it's not what you know, it's who you know. Who do you know? Do you know your Provincial Apiarist? The Provincial Horticulturalist or Crop Specialist? Can you sway them to address the situation?

Are you familiar with the Ontario Pollinator Protection Plan?


----------



## beemandan

zhiv9 said:


> There are a lot of pro-science beekeepers (I am certainly one of them).





zhiv9 said:


> the strong flow and excellent nutrition provided by canola negate the toxic effects or make it easier for the bees to detoxify any low level neonic exposure.


Help me here. I'm only trying to understand your position. Is there science that indicates that Canola delivers potentially toxic levels of neonics in its pollen or nectar?


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> How do you measure the results?


Yards in the municipality where ditch flowers are preserved need less supplemental feed through out non crop blooming periods, yards in ditch sprayed RMs need continuous feeding .
I end up relocating those yards back into areas of natural forage


----------



## beeware10

where I live in upstate ny our county has the most acreage of corn in nys. no problems here but why would my bees be flying across a tilled field during corn planting season. I cant understand why bees would be crossing a barren field to get exposed to corn dust. that sounds like too much theory to me. our fields are 50 - 300 acres and forage for them is much closer.


----------



## Ian

The problem with planter dust is it collects in the implement dust bloom, and drifts over to flowering trees which bees are foraging. The bees then bring in the poison while collecting pollen off those trees. 
That part is the real deal, R and D is being put into that issue


----------



## zhiv9

beemandan said:


> Help me here. I'm only trying to understand your position. Is there science that indicates that Canola delivers potentially toxic levels of neonics in its pollen or nectar?


No, not that I am aware of. There is a discrepancy in experiences between beekeepers near treated canola/rape and those near corn/soy. Those near canola/rape generally report no negative effects. Those near corn and soy have been the one generally reporting negative effects. Not just in Ontario, but also in the Italy, and I believe Germany and France as well. The common argument, is if neonics are so bad, why do bees perform so well on treated canola?


----------



## pleasantvalley

There's a new interim report from Health Canada, just concerning imidacloprid: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2016-05/rev2016-05-eng.php


----------



## B&E

pleasantvalley said:


> There's a new interim report from Health Canada, just concerning imidacloprid: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2016-05/rev2016-05-eng.php


That's kinda irrelevant, since imidicloprid isn't approved as a seed treatment....in ON anyways.


----------



## B&E

beeware10 said:


> where I live in upstate ny our county has the most acreage of corn in nys. no problems here but why would my bees be flying across a tilled field during corn planting season. I cant understand why bees would be crossing a barren field to get exposed to corn dust. that sounds like too much theory to me. our fields are 50 - 300 acres and forage for them is much closer.


This is the stuff I really find interesting. Anyone out there who is running a migratory operation but spending spring and fall in a corn /soy area? 

Even better, anyone pollinating low bush blueberries and moving back west or south and seeing nothing unusual, or loses that cannot be explained?


----------



## zhiv9

Ian said:


> The problem with planter dust is it collects in the implement dust bloom, and drifts over to flowering trees which bees are foraging. The bees then bring in the poison while collecting pollen off those trees.
> That part is the real deal, R and D is being put into that issue


In CBC's correspondence, Bayer claims that the new lubricant reduced dust by 40-70% while OMAFRA's testing found the dust reduction 21-55 percent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...s-about-neonicotinoid-treated-seeds-1.2645568

I am not sure if further improvements have been made since then.


----------



## zhiv9

beeware10 said:


> where I live in upstate ny our county has the most acreage of corn in nys. no problems here but why would my bees be flying across a tilled field during corn planting season. I cant understand why bees would be crossing a barren field to get exposed to corn dust. that sounds like too much theory to me. our fields are 50 - 300 acres and forage for them is much closer.


beware, if you did have a planting dust kill? how would you report it? to who? who would come out and investigate?


----------



## zhiv9

sqkcrk said:


> How much sway do you have with those who can employ the precautionary principles? It is often said, it's not what you know, it's who you know. Who do you know? Do you know your Provincial Apiarist? The Provincial Horticulturalist or Crop Specialist? Can you sway them to address the situation?
> 
> Are you familiar with the Ontario Pollinator Protection Plan?


I am reasonably familiar with the Ontario Pollinator Protection Plan or at least the new requirements for grain farmers. The PMRA is federal and has the ability to approve or ban pesticides. The precautionary principle is part of its mandate. The provincial government can't ban an approved pesticide, but it is responsible for regulating it's use and sale. Up until now treated seed wasn't regulated, but now it is classified as a pesticide itself and has specific regulations for its use. 

For this season grain farmers can use treated seed on 50% of their acreage without completing a pest assessment report (IPM). If they want to use treated seed on the other 50% they have to complete a pest assessment report to justify the use. Justification comes from either soil scouting or proof of loss.

For next season(2017) and onward grain farmers will have to justify any use of treated seat through a pest assessment report.


----------



## jim lyon

B&E said:


> This is the stuff I really find interesting. Anyone out there who is running a migratory operation but spending spring and fall in a corn /soy area?
> 
> Even better, anyone pollinating low bush blueberries and moving back west or south and seeing nothing unusual, or loses that cannot be explained?


Most of the spring planting is usually done in South Dakota by the time our bees are shipped north in late May. I've never experienced a planter dust kill but I don't doubt that there have been issues in some situations. My understanding is that it takes the right convergence of dry conditions with bees actively foraging on something like dandelions within the field for a loss to occur.


----------



## Ian

zhiv9 said:


> In CBC's correspondence, Bayer claims that the new lubricant reduced dust by 40-70% while OMAFRA's testing found the dust reduction 21-55 percent.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/b...s-about-neonicotinoid-treated-seeds-1.2645568
> 
> I am not sure if further improvements have been made since then.


Ya the new lubricant has almost eliminated that excess blow out. Our planter's vacuum looks like a "dirt devil" as compared to the new vacuum planters ( which came about recently , hint hint ). With the old lubricant those machines were blue or red from the blow out... With the new lubercant the blower screen is hardly discoloured . 
Definitely a noticeable difference and farmers like the new lubercant as it flows better than the old.


----------



## David LaFerney

Oldtimer said:


> Still is. Thing is, you see a shop towel, don't necessarily mean it's tactic. A guy with a record like that you have to wonder what he could be doing, his results indicate something is amiss.


t: I was told by someone who *should* know that you have to reapply several times on schedule - so it seems like whatever you save in chemical you would spend in labor compared to apivar. If so, why not just use apivar? t:


----------



## beeware10

zhiv9 we have really not had any bee kill since the early 80's and we don't have a support system in place. I hate to deal with the gov. as most commercial guys are quite independent unless you get on the gov programs. back then the state would investigate and they had a reimbursement program for losses. one of the biggest beekeepers in fla made a lot of money off the program which led to the end of the program. like always if you put a stupid program in place it will get misused.


----------



## zhiv9

beeware10 said:


> zhiv9 we have really not had any bee kill since the early 80's and we don't have a support system in place.


The problem with not having a system of reporting is that you really have no idea if something is a problem or not. You aren't having issues, but Jim Doan apparently was. I am assuming there are others in New York that have had the similar experiences, both good and bad, but how to know how many?


----------



## sqkcrk

" I am assuming there are others in New York that have had the similar experiences, ..." That is your privilege, but that does not make it so. I cannot name you anyone else who has had the same experience as Jim has. Now, perhaps I just haven't heard about them. Perhaps Jim is the most vocal. And our State Apiculturist not vocal enough. But I have not heard of others who have experienced what Jim has.

There is a system for reporting and Jim Doan reported.


----------



## Harley Craig

Roland said:


> I can say that something has changed in the last 10 years, more so in the last 5. Prior to that time it was very rare to loose a hive NOT in winter. Now it is common to loose hives in spring and summer. As someone's wise tag states, suspect mites first. We did so, and could not associate hive loss with mites. The losses where way too sudden, like a whole yard in a week. We also see a very wide variation between yards. One might loose one of 36, the next 35 of 36. More clues are that the strong hives fail first, and if a yard is suddenly set back, the live hives due recover. That does not fit a mite scenario. We have also found a correlation between a late frost with weeds blooming in the alfalfa and hives losses.
> 
> From the above, we are also looking at pyrethroids used to treat alfalfa weevils. There has not been any association with neonicitinoid seed treatments.
> 
> Crazy Roland



any fungicide use in the area? I think it effects bees way more that neonics ever could.


----------



## wildbranch2007

RichardsonTX said:


> Could the queen stock be the cause of some of these losses? For example, queens that have mated with drone stock that has a lot of AHB genetics might be producing stock that can't withstand cold climates.


Interesting point and I only comment because our second order of queens was delayed because the breeder said last year that he had a large rush order for Mr. Hackenburg. My queens from this breeder survive the cold just fine, and they are not aggressive, pretty docile, so I don't suspect any AHB genetics.


----------



## wildbranch2007

To no one in particular, but the beeks that suspect the neonics other than planter dust is creating problems. Even though it was a terrible study, the Dr Lu study can be used for something, he kept increasing the dose of neonics far beyond ld50 to finally see an effect and even higher to eventually kill the hives?


----------



## zhiv9

sqkcrk said:


> There is a system for reporting and Jim Doan reported.


Mark, explain the system. If you did have a planting dust kill? how would you report it? to who? who would come out and investigate? how long would it take them to come out? Would you be charged for these services or are they free of charge?

Applying Occam's Razor. If there are vacuum seeders, coated corn seed and beekeepers in New York state, it is far more likely that there have at least been dust kills than not. Even with a good, free reporting system here, it took years for beekeepers to actually use it. Suspicion of government programs and inspectors won't help.

Anyways, I am sure when it comes to NY you would know better. Perhaps the bulk of bees aren't in the state during corn planting or have been moved to pollinate apples. The point I am trying to make, is that nobody really knows how many incidents there have been in the US in general because the reporting system is either poor of non-existent in many states. Without good data it is hard to make a case either way.


----------



## wildbranch2007

one other point, there was a discussion on bee-l when Mr. Hackenberg had his original problem, and one of the other commercial beeks was aware of the testing that was done on his bees. His bees were loaded with nosema-c and one other disease that I will have to go search again to find. so if you are interested just go search on his name and find all kinds of interesting info, but there are many posts over the years.

I copied part of the post from the original Hackenberg ccd-neonic problem



> The CCD working group constantly played down (myself and Danny Weaver could
> not believe and said so at meetings) the FACT Kashmir Bee virus ( a known
> bee killer in Canada) and nosema ceranae (a known bee killer in Spain) were
> in 100% of the CCD hackenburg samples and dismissed as the root of the
> problem and wanted funds to research further. Most beeks were quite as we
> feld those researchers needed something new killing bees to get funding.
> 
> Commercial beeks knew the way to control both KBV & nosema ceranae in spring
> 2006 but not being some *new* problem killing bees little government help
> would come.
> 
> Low varroa count keeps KBV at bay.
> 
> Low spore counts keeps N. ceranae at bay.


----------



## sqkcrk

zhiv9 said:


> Mark, explain the system. If you did have a planting dust kill? how would you report it? to who? who would come out and investigate? how long would it take them to come out? Would you be charged for these services or are they free of charge?


When one suspects a bee kill from pesticide exposure, in NY, one needs to call the Department of Environmental Conservation (the DEC) and report the circumstances. Whether someone responds by coming out, collecting evidence, and doing an investigation or not, if no one calls there is no reason for anyone to look into the alleged problem.

More reporting shows need which those in charge should take notice of and pay attention to.

I thought that the number for the DEC was posted on the eshpa website. Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. If a beekeeper can't find the DEC number then they should call the Dept of Ag&Mkts and talk to the State Apiculturist.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> I thought that the number for the DEC was posted on the eshpa website. Maybe it is, but I didn't see it. If a beekeeper can't find the DEC number then they should call the Dept of Ag&Mkts and talk to the State Apiculturist.


It was on the eshpa site, as I asked them to put it up years ago, at some point someone changed it to say to call Cappy, so if they followed the directions now they would never get it reported.

it was on the page beekeeper resources I think now it's


> This page is under construction.


----------



## Michael Palmer

B&E said:


> This is the stuff I really find interesting. Anyone out there who is running a migratory operation but spending spring and fall in a corn /soy area?


In 2012, 
I was giving a presentation at EAS. Both Daves were there. One slide on my PP was my cell building apiary...surrounded by Clothianadin corn. I mentioned that this apiary, although surrounded by corn, was healthy and productive, and I don't see collapsing colonies. Dave M stood up to confront me about what I had just said. I asked him to sit down and we'd talk later as I has the podium.

So later that day, Dave and I had a talk. He tried to explain to me what he felt was happening...that his bees were being poisoned by neonics. "I take my bees to almonds, and they get a dose. I take my bees to blueberries and they get a dose. Then, when I take my bees to corn areas they crash". 

So I repeated what he just said...posed as a question to him. Then said, "Why do you take your bees to corn then"? He said, "I don't". ???

And speaking with Dave H, he said my bees must have additional crops on which to forage, or I would be seeing the same. 

So tell me this....If you took your bees to an area that had nothing to forage on but corn, and the colonies crash, is it the Clothianadin or lack of forage?

And, if your bees crash year after year, and you truly feel that the cause was neonics because they got a dose in almonds and a dose in blueberries, and a dose in corn, why the heck would you go back. Obviously the money is a big reason. Is losing the bees worth it? 

Well, I think the $300,000+ that Dave H has gleaned from the US coffers answers that question.


----------



## wildbranch2007

I was just thinking, a lot of the speculation that is going on here could be silenced, I'm sure the state would not release the details, but all commercial beeks are inspected b/4 they leave ny, this would give an idea of the mite count and nosema counts. Hey Mark do you know if Mr. Hakenburg got any of the nucs that are part of the Cornell pollen/pesticide research? that would also help to get to the bottom of what caused his problems. so much potential information available, and no one to use it.:scratch:


----------



## sqkcrk

wildbranch2007 said:


> It was on the eshpa site, as I asked them to put it up years ago, at some point someone changed it to say to call Cappy, so if they followed the directions now they would never get it reported.
> 
> it was on the page beekeeper resources I think now it's


Thanks, Mike. Some times I think we have too much information on the site.


----------



## sqkcrk

wildbranch2007 said:


> I was just thinking, a lot of the speculation that is going on here could be silenced, I'm sure the state would not release the details, but all commercial beeks are inspected b/4 they leave ny, this would give an idea of the mite count and nosema counts. Hey Mark do you know if Mr. Hackenburg got any of the nucs that are part of the Cornell pollen/pesticide research? that would also help to get to the bottom of what caused his problems. so much potential information available, and no one to use it.:scratch:


No one got nucs. The way that study was originally set up was changed. The bees you refer to are in the hands of Cornell, under Scott McArt's supervision. I don't think that they are leaving the State.

All commercial beekeepers are inspected before leaving NY, but not the day they leave. Not even the week before. And only for diseases and pests, not for what's in the pollen or honey or wax.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> All commercial beekeepers are inspected before leaving NY, but not the day they leave. Not even the week before. And only for diseases and pests, not for what's in the pollen or honey or wax.


yes but to get by all the speculation, IF his mite counts or nosema counts were high, wouldn't that be of some help in determining why they died? and the hives that died have pollen in them to analyze and since his hives were in NY for the summer I would hope cornell (scott) might show some interest in the bee bread as that what he is studying.

but the speculation is more fun I spose.opcorn:


----------



## sqkcrk

I believe that when the phenomenon that became known as CCD first occurred in Hack's hives there were all sorts of things looked at by a number of concerns. Such as, what is now called, the Bee Informed Project out of the University of MD, Dr. Maryanne Frazier's labs at Penn State, and probably some investigation by the FL Dept of Ag's Apiary inspection Service. That would have been done in 2006. I don't know what could be looked into and found now that would address the initial problems.

I am sure that what is going on in Dave's hives concerns him greatly and that he spends a lot of time thinking about what he could do differently.

We all do the best we can with what we have.


----------



## B&E

Michael Palmer said:


> In 2012,
> 
> And, if your bees crash year after year, and you truly feel that the cause was neonics because they got a dose in almonds and a dose in blueberries, and a dose in corn, why the heck would you go back. Obviously the money is a big reason. Is losing the bees worth it?


I think the answer to this different in a lot of situations, esp in the USA than Canada. For instance, many of the people "effected" *live *in a corn area. What choice do they have? Most do not even move.


----------



## B&E

Michael Palmer said:


> In 2012,
> 
> Well, I think the $300,000+ that Dave H has gleaned from the US coffers answers that question.


Michael, I have tremendous respect for you... but please clarify. Are you suggesting that beeks move or stay in corn areas so that all of their bees can crash to collect gov' money? Meaning that over the last 10 years, the 300k for Hack would be so lucrative that it's worth it to lose all of those hives?


----------



## beemandan

I'm a little guy...around 150 - 200 hives....so take it for what it's worth. I have a few yards that are within foraging distance of canola that is planted in those fields about every other year. Otherwise there aren't any neonic crops of consequence anywhere near me.
If I were managing my hives in the same way that I did ten years ago...my losses would be high. I don't think 90% but high all the same. My biggest difference in management is varroa. It isn't that there are more of them. Instead they appear to take a heavier toll. My treatment thresholds are half of what they were ten years ago. Ten years ago a single end of season treatment was enough. I've since added early spring or mid winter treatments. My point is that I wonder how many of the big operations have gotten stuck on treating by the calendar...and gotten fixed on the 'it always worked before' mindset? All the while the pressures on their bees....maybe even including neonics.... has risen dramatically. How does a business go about a significant eyes-on evaluation of 60,000 hives? And...do the same people do those evaluations year after year...so that they might notice those incremental changes?
Same goes for old comb. If I lost 90% of my colonies in a single year...and I was willing to start over....I'd start from scratch on my brood comb. Does someone who loses 40,000 colonies restart from scratch? How old is that brood comb? How much ugly stuff has collected in it? How does this add to all of the other pressures?
To me...the jury is still out on neonics. What little science I've read, at best, is inconclusive.
Just my humble opinion.


----------



## B&E

Obviously no one is solving this debate on here, an as I stated before I don't even know where I stand. 

Fact: bees ARE exposed to neonics. There is no debating this.

Fact: neonics are in places in the environment they are NOT supposed to be. Both from being in water and moving around and from being airborne and blowing around.

The questions are:

Is the exposure to the bees causing sub lethal effects that screw up queens and a colonies ability to fight off viruses and mites?

Are the neonics in the environment worse than other products that farmers would use instead. There is no debating whether or not a pesticide in rivers and pollen of wild plants is bad, let's not be foolish, that's bad. But is it worse than ...? That I don't know.


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> Ya the new lubricant has almost eliminated that excess blow out. Our planter's vacuum looks like a "dirt devil" as compared to the new vacuum planters ( which came about recently , hint hint ). With the old lubricant those machines were blue or red from the blow out... With the new lubercant the blower screen is hardly discoloured .
> Definitely a noticeable difference and farmers like the new lubercant as it flows better than the old.


So if the issue is dust...and I tip my hat to the improvements that have been made.  And there have been great improvements, to both the lube and the planters. We have no seen the acute damage in this province like we did in 2012 and the issue became really hot. 

I'm so confused though, as to why it cannot be controlled 100%. If we can build a planter and tractor that can drive down a field and plant so precisely that there is no waste or overlap, surely we can build a filter that allows nothing but clean air to escape into the environment...no?


----------



## beemandan

B&E said:


> Obviously no one is solving this debate on here,


I'm not even sure it's a debate. Just a bunch of folks expressing opinions...myself included. Not a lot different than Dave Hackenberg expressing his.
But I am interested in those thoughtful and civilly offered opinions. A relatively respectful dialog. 
On the subject of neonics...I'm a bit like you....mostly confused.


----------



## B&E

beemandan said:


> I'm not even sure it's a debate. Just a bunch of folks expressing opinions...myself included. Not a lot different than Dave Hackenberg expressing his.
> But I am interested in those thoughtful and civilly offered opinions. A relatively respectful dialog.
> On the subject of neonics...I'm a bit like you....mostly confused.


amen! Communication and respect is key. Just because someone is not seeing issues doesn't mean that they're "denying" truth, as I have been accused of. And the inverse is also true.


----------



## sqkcrk

B&E said:


> Michael, I have tremendous respect for you... but please clarify. Are you suggesting that beeks move or stay in corn areas so that all of their bees can crash to collect gov' money? Meaning that over the last 10 years, the 300k for Hack would be so lucrative that it's worth it to lose all of those hives?


Looks to me like he is saying that if you go to one place and get shot, but not killed, and then you go to another place and get shot, but not killed, and then you go to a third place and get shot again, and you die. Maybe you should do something differently in your next life.


----------



## wildbranch2007

B&E said:


> Michael, I have tremendous respect for you... but please clarify. Are you suggesting that beeks move or stay in corn areas so that all of their bees can crash to collect gov' money? Meaning that over the last 10 years, the 300k for Hack would be so lucrative that it's worth it to lose all of those hives?


I'll give a different perspective, it's a business decision. A commercial beek told me when he takes contracts for certain known problem crops, he will only accept a contract if he gets the price he wants, which is the price the bees would fetch if sold. So if he gets wiped out on that crop, he still has his equipment, if he doesn't suffer any damage or only some, on to the next contract. Now how many contracts does he fulfil before those particular hives get wiped out? he's successful and doesn't file for ELAP. now add on an ELAP payment when ever the govt. decides to pay and you are far ahead of the game. Now this only would appear to work if you also kept some hives out of pollination and keep making replacement hives all year, or you can purchase replacements from someone else with the money from that one contract payment. all depends on your business plan and doesn't have to have anything at all to do with neonic's, diesel fuel smoke, or the weather in Juno Alaska.


----------



## JRG13

Kind of akin to farmers buying insurance full well knowing certain crops will be a 100% claim, it's money in the bank either way.


----------



## Ian

B&E said:


> So if the issue is dust...and I tip my hat to the improvements that have been made. And there have been great improvements, to both the lube and the planters. We have no seen the acute damage in this province like we did in 2012 and the issue became really hot.
> 
> I'm so confused though, as to why it cannot be controlled 100%. If we can build a planter and tractor that can drive down a field and plant so precisely that there is no waste or overlap, surely we can build a filter that allows nothing but clean air to escape into the environment...no?


Yup but think of it this way... 
How many new truck drivers curse everytime they run short on DEF... 
Think of how happy farmers, tired from weeks of 15 hr days get shut down in the field because their blow out filter is plugged... these issues are called farmer fixes... 
Making improvement to the flowable and the vacuum blower has substantially reduced the blow out .
these planters run all spring around here, corn soy and canola...


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> Yup but think of it this way...
> How many new truck drivers curse everytime they run short on DEF...
> Think of how happy farmers, tired from weeks of 15 hr days get shut down in the field because their blow out filter is plugged... these issues are called farmer fixes...
> Making improvement to the flowable and the vacuum blower has substantially reduced the blow out .
> these planters run all spring around here, corn soy and canola...


huh? so we can't reduce dust even more because we are concerned farmers are going to have to change filters, and then they would curse, and cursing is bad, which means we have to live with dust instead of cursing farmers???? Sorry Ian, I am not sure what you mean.


----------



## B&E

JRG13 said:


> Kind of akin to farmers buying insurance full well knowing certain crops will be a 100% claim, it's money in the bank either way.


that's preposterous. live hives are worth WAY more than any payout.


----------



## JRG13

That is true, but someone still got paid with dead hives.


----------



## wildbranch2007

B&E said:


> that's preposterous. live hives are worth WAY more than any payout.


I don't know, sort of the same thing that Canadians did when they had access to packages, killed the bees, took all the honey, and ordered new packages in the spring.


----------



## D Coates

B&E said:


> The questions are:
> 
> Is the exposure to the bees causing sub lethal effects that screw up queens and a colonies ability to fight off viruses and mites?


Everything that isn't lethal is sub lethal. Any lethally affected queen is dead and thus screwed up the colonies ability to survive. The question is, "Does exposure screw up queens and a colonies ability to fight off viruses and mites?" I think we'd all like to see scientifically based and repeatable evidence either way.



B&E said:


> Are the neonics in the environment worse than other products that farmers would use instead. There is no debating whether or not a pesticide in rivers and pollen of wild plants is bad, let's not be foolish, that's bad. But is it worse than ...? That I don't know.


 Fully agreed. Many who want outright bans seem to forget this.


----------



## jim lyon

B&E said:


> Obviously no one is solving this debate on here, an as I stated before I don't even know where I stand.
> 
> Fact: bees ARE exposed to neonics. There is no debating this.


Certainly some bees in some locations are. I wish there were yearly summaries like this but here is an interesting read from a 2011-12 aphis survey of 99 pollen samples taken from beekeepers around the country. My assumption, given the fact that there are no negative samples listed, is that the table on p. 16 is a listing of only the positive readings. I would think an objective read of this might lead researchers more towards suspecting beekeeper applied pesticides being a large part of the problem. Also some interesting info on mite loads and bee viruses found which show how pervasive dwv has become. How can any objective reading of this summary conclude that varroa/virus is not a huge problem? FWIW samples taken from some of our hives are included in the survey and we had nary a positive reading. I don't recall getting individual results on virus readings. 
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_he...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf


----------



## Ian

B&E said:


> huh? so we can't reduce dust even more because we are concerned farmers are going to have to change filters, and then they would curse, and cursing is bad, which means we have to live with dust instead of cursing farmers???? Sorry Ian, I am not sure what you mean.


It's like putting an inline filter coming out of your extractor... How practical is that? and the problems it causes, get my drift?

The dust issue has been managed with a change of flowable and implement modifications.


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> It's like putting an inline filter coming out of your extractor... How practical is that? and the problems it causes, get my drift?
> 
> The dust issue has been managed with a change of flowable and implement modifications.


I kind of get it, but not really. 

Dust doesn't seem to be as big of an issue with canola though. Likely due to seed shape. The insecticide is not adhering to the corn as well. I actually have a hard time believing that can't be solved. I mean, they can make a plant that you can spray "round up" on and it doesn't die...get my drift?


----------



## Ian

Nope, I'm not trying to sound smart, I think a lack of understanding of what the equipment is doing makes a big difference. 

One part is the vacuum, which picks the seeds individually. That is the part they focused on with the flowable and equipment mods. 
The other part is the seed delivery. All seed machines are equip with some variation of this. It's the tiny shots of air under the surface which generally is contained.... Except for unique conditions... 

The next part of the equation is how much of a problem does it actually represent? 

Changing the flowable and managing the exhausted air flow was a huge improvement without re designing 30 years of engineering. 

The OTHER part of the equation is impeding the farmers ability to utilize our air delivery seeding systems. IF Beekeepers are stamped with that, kiss your bountiful honey yards away. I've been scoffed at for saying this before...to prove my point, tomorrow go visit your grain farmer neighbour and tell him his air seeder is killing your bees, and it's his obligation to change his seed delivery back to a mechanical metering system ...

BE, how exactly do you manage dust bloom behind air delivery field equipment ?


----------



## Roland

HarleyCraig - I am sure fungicides are used, but they do not predominate on alfalfa. I will have to do my homework.

I spoke with D. Hackenberg when he first had CCD, on or about 2006. At that time, Nosema C. was not common knowledge. As far as I am concerned, his test irradiation of equipment was more valuable than any Gov't test, it proved CCD was a pathogen. I further gave him our cure "Red ball of fire", which he passed on to Beltsville. 

For all of the ABJ readers, read page 171 about Hauke, and note that it echos what I have stated here. The answer will lie in patterns to be discovered.

Crazy Roland


----------



## Michael Palmer

B&E said:


> Michael, I have tremendous respect for you... but please clarify. Are you suggesting that beeks move or stay in corn areas so that all of their bees can crash to collect gov' money? Meaning that over the last 10 years, the 300k for Hack would be so lucrative that it's worth it to lose all of those hives?


Of course not. I just can't fathom why a migratory beekeeper who has lost thousands of colonies in the last few years, and is convinced that the losses were caused by neonic pesticide, would continue go to the same area with the same pollination contracts with the same bee management and continue to put his bees through the grinder. Does it make any sense to you?


----------



## Michael Palmer

Roland said:


> I spoke with D. Hackenberg when he first had CCD, on or about 2006. At that time, Nosema C. was not common knowledge. As far as I am concerned, his test irradiation of equipment was more valuable than any Gov't test, it proved CCD was a pathogen.


Okay, but with varroa, some old pathogens suddenly become deadly. And did you listen to Jadczak in the video that Winevines posted in this thread? On May 26, in Maine, 2006, Dave's bees rolled 90 mites from a sample of 150 bees. 90! In May! Walking dead.


----------



## Fusion_power

If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got.


----------



## Michael Palmer

B&E said:


> I think the answer to this different in a lot of situations, esp in the USA than Canada. For instance, many of the people "effected" *live *in a corn area. What choice do they have? Most do not even move.


My bees are surrounded by corn, all with Clothianadin. No CCD here. No huge losses here.


----------



## grozzie2

Michael Palmer said:


> And did you listen to Jadczak in the video that Winevines posted in this thread? On May 26, in Maine, 2006, Dave's bees rolled 90 mites from a sample of 150 bees. 90! In May!


That was but ONE of the many tidbits I took from that video, it was WELL worth the hour to watch. We often watch stuff like that over dinner here, and that one was _so_ informative, may watch it again tonite, and see what I missed on the first go around.


----------



## Ian

grozzie2 said:


> That was but ONE of the many tidbits I took from that video, it was WELL worth the hour to watch. We often watch stuff like that over dinner here, and that one was _so_ informative, may watch it again tonite, and see what I missed on the first go around.


A great watch!! 

Big AG .... Neinics is but a mere part... If you have been listening to my ramblings, when I say Big AG I mean everything from Bayer to the beekeeper

His comment on blueberry growers blasting bolders off their " natural " terrain , speaks volumes. 

>>oh but no!! Let's blame the ONLY thing in the equation that we CANT SEE!! <<


----------



## B&E

Michael Palmer said:


> Of course not. I just can't fathom why a migratory beekeeper who has lost thousands of colonies in the last few years, and is convinced that the losses were caused by neonic pesticide, would continue go to the same area with the same pollination contracts with the same bee management and continue to put his bees through the grinder. Does it make any sense to you?


it does not


----------



## B&E

Michael Palmer said:


> My bees are surrounded by corn, all with Clothianadin. No CCD here. No huge losses here.


this is very encouraging.

any summer loses that you didn't have 10 years ago?


----------



## Roland

M. Palmer - No, I did not get a chance to view the video.

It is all quite possible that Hackenberg did have a terrible mite problem as you mentioned. That does not distract from his irradiation experiment where he irradiated half of a group of hive, placed bees in the whole group, and noted that the irradiation cured many of his issues. I am acknowledging his contribution to resolving the CCD problem. This is NOT a comment on his ability to keep his bees mite free. They are two separate achievements. How he runs his bees has little effect on me, but the information that irradiation cured problems was very valuable to all of us.

We need a similar simple "test" or "experiment" that will give us direction with the current situation. If there was a different antidote for each of the neonicitinods/pyrethroids/ets.... we could see which antidote cures them and then know the cause of our problems. 

Maybe a first step would be to suggest curtailment of tank mixes, on the grounds that the mix has not been tested. It would greatly reduce the variables in our search.

Crazy Roland


----------



## jwcarlson

Michael Palmer said:


> Okay, but with varroa, some old pathogens suddenly become deadly. And did you listen to Jadczak in the video that Winevines posted in this thread? On May 26, in Maine, 2006, Dave's bees rolled 90 mites from a sample of 150 bees. 90! In May! Walking dead.


I just finished watching that... eye opening and pretty ****ing re: Hackenberg. My favorite quote was towards the end he said something like "We've always had CCD, we just used to call it PMS." The people moving all their bees while foraging is taking place is pretty impressive, too. I can't imagine the colony isn't extremely effected by that kind of mismanagement. He also talked about 30% losses being the norm historically. I was starting to get that impression while reading some of the oldish bee books, Honey Farming by R.O.B. Manley most recently... I believe he mentioned a loss rate somewhere in that neighborhood.



Michael Palmer said:


> My bees are surrounded by corn, all with Clothianadin. No CCD here. No huge losses here.


I am a tiny sample size, but I don't know of anyone around here in the corn capital of the world where nere a square inch goes unplowed who is attributing colony losses to neonics. Almost all of my bees are within a stones throw of tilled monocrop. Have heard some rumblings of planting dust issues, but even that seems isolated. We're not terribly dry come planting time as a rule, however.


----------



## Michael Palmer

B&E said:


> this is very encouraging.
> 
> any summer loses that you didn't have 10 years ago?


No, I only see normal summer losses...queen loss and/or failure. The supposed 25% summer loss reported by commercial beekeepers? Can't imagine. 

But when I pollinated, I remember discussions among fellow pollinators that claimed a 10% loss of queens when colonies were moved. Maybe a bit high in my experience, but suppose one could expect a 5% loss from the move. And suppose a beekeeper wintering inn the south who moves colonies to almonds and back to winter locations. Then north to, say, apples or blueberries halfway up north. Then to the blueberry barrens of Maine. Then to another crop, and then to summering locations....before moving south to wintering locations. 5 moves at 5% loss 2 move equates to a 25% loss. Could happen I guess.


----------



## beemandan

Michael Palmer said:


> And did you listen to Jadczak in the video that Winevines posted in this thread?


Not yet...but am expecting a rainy day today. Now let's see.....video or taxes?


----------



## johno

This story about irradiating half his bees, will not radiation kill all the bugs including the bees. My understanding of things dying from radiation is due to the radiation killing all the bacteria in the body. Can anyone clarify this.
Johno


----------



## Oldtimer

For some years Roland had CCD like symptoms and I think (from memory) he actually called it CCD, then after the hive died the combs would spread it if used on a new hive. He found irradiating the combs solved it.

Also I think it was Roland who reported that these combs would not even be touched by wax moths they avoided them. Might have to ask Roland to confirm on that though it may have been someone else..


----------



## sqkcrk

johno said:


> This story about irradiating half his bees, will not radiation kill all the bugs including the bees. My understanding of things dying from radiation is due to the radiation killing all the bacteria in the body. Can anyone clarify this.
> Johno


Yes, the equipment is irradiated, not the live colonies. I've never done it, but what I have heard a person has to put the supers of comb individually into cardboard boxes and stacked on a warehouse pallet so they can be handled by forklift.


----------



## jim lyon

Our summer losses typically run in the 10 to 15% range. We requeen annually, some of them I blame on the 1,000 mile migratory trip but mostly it seems like poor matings, queens that seem to lack vitality and just dwindle down. What we rarely see are full blown drone layers but instead dwindling lw hives.


----------



## zhiv9

Roland said:


> That does not distract from his irradiation experiment where he irradiated half of a group of hive, placed bees in the whole group, and noted that the irradiation cured many of his issues. I am acknowledging his contribution to resolving the CCD problem. This is NOT a comment on his ability to keep his bees mite free. They are two separate achievements. How he runs his bees has little effect on me, but the information that irradiation cured problems was very valuable to all of us.


There is a beekeeper in Ontario that has been working with the OBA tech transfer team on treating deadouts/empty equipment with ozone. Here is an older article: http://www.producer.com/2014/12/ozone-treatment-kills-bee-pests-reduces-pesticides/


----------



## wildbranch2007

Roland said:


> It is all quite possible that Hackenberg did have a terrible mite problem as you mentioned. That does not distract from his irradiation experiment where he irradiated half of a group of hive, placed bees in the whole group, and noted that the irradiation cured many of his issues.
> 
> Crazy Roland


seems to be much conflicting information about if the irradiation helped with Mr. Hackenberg's problems, after the irradiation didn't solve his problem, he got on the neonic as being the cause. from a post in 2008



> Now there certainly are problems with our bees. I am in contact almost daily
> with commercial beekeepers and I can honestly say that most of those having
> troubles this year had troubles last year. A few new beeks are reporting
> troubles but most have a good idea what caused their losses. Also if the
> problem in Dave Hackenbergs bees had been a new pathogen then radiation
> would have solved the problem and it did not. Davy hackenberg said they are
> down to around 900 hives with only a third strong enough to split. So all
> thats left in the Hackenberg issue is contaminated comb which could not be
> removed by radiation. Hackenberg suspects neonicotinoids.


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...1=bee-l&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


----------



## wildbranch2007

B&E said:


> that's preposterous. live hives are worth WAY more than any payout.


took me a while to find this old post, made by a large commercial beek. now how is running the hives into the ground any difference than depopulating manually with the exception that the govt. will pay you I think it was $90 dollars a hive to run them into the ground???



> As example Richard Adee used to only keep 25% of his hives (BC article from
> 90's) and depopulate the rest as he needed the equipment to use again. Many
> of his hives were depopulated by Bell Honey in Florida and then the empty
> equipment sent to the operation in Mississippi( I was involved in this
> part). In those days after the honey flow in the Dakota's was over and *if*
> fifty percent were dead it was not cause for concern and only meant the
> deadouts were sent to Mississippi instead of Florida to be depopulated.
> Actually saved on trucking and cost in Florida of depopulation. The
> beekeeper in Florida at the time employed a much larger work force than the
> Adee operation ( has actually been larger at various times in beekeeping
> history) and was set up for depopulating the hives in a huge building
> setting. Said beekeeper is retired now ( rumors say silent partner in
> certain beekeeping operations ) and the plan does not really fit now since
> the Adee's are big into almond pollination and as I understand go now
> directly to California from the Dakota's in fall.
> 
> The point I make is one my long time friend Jerry B. has trouble with. 50%
> losses seem ok with some beekeepers he seems not to understand. Unlike the
> hobby beekeeper (same actually give queens names) the commercial beekeeper
> decides on the number of hives he will run. As example say a 1000 hives and
> he requeens every year. So if he wants to requeen all he takes one strong
> hive and turn into four in spring he needs to depopulate 75% (750 hives
> using the above example) to have the equipment he needs in spring. He keeps
> the absolute best 250 and sends to the splitting area which in the case of
> the Adee's was Mississippi and for us is Texas. The commercial migratory
> beekeeper now has his 1000 hives back with new queens.
> 
> A young queen pays instead of costs!


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...1=bee-l&9=A&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4

:applause:


----------



## deknow

We do have an irradiation program available in our area. I don't think it's any kind of revelation that if you have comb with bacterial/viral/fungal issues contamination that using gamma irradiation will make the comb usable (even with visible afb scale and chalkbrood mummies). 

I don't think anyone would be surprised to find a colony that is collapsing for whatever reason to become compromised with a microbial disease (or viral) and to leave behind some source or reinfection on the comb....or to see this improved with irradiation.

My impression (and I don't have a specific citation) is that beekeepers generally report great results from irradiated comb...and one might speculate that the older the comb, the more impact irradiation might have vs not irradiated.

One would really have to compare the irradiated CCD comb to irradiated non-CCD comb in order to learn anything meaningful about CCD.

adding in edit: There is one drawback of having an irradiation program available, which is that equipment gets stored to irradiate in the spring. I know that the idea of AHB equipment being trucked around in vehicles and stored freaks some people out...but the only issues I know about involved people getting a deal on known contaminated equipment, storing it to irradiate as needed, and a relative taking some equipment off the wrong pile. Coupled with all the other kinds of things that go on with people, this lead to real problems.


----------



## deknow

Mike, thanks for digging that up. I really learned a lot from Bob Harrison...his posts are always worth reading.


----------



## Dominic

An experiment presented in Apimondia 2012 (Québec city) showed that hives installed on irradiated comb actually had more viruses than those on comb that wasn't irradiated...

Impact of viruses on honey bee comb on the phenology of virus dynamics and impact of viruses on honey bee colony performance
Rob Currie, Ph.D., professor and Head, Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


> Surprisingly, electron beam sterilization treatments did not suppress virus levels and in fact virus levels in irradiated treatments were higher than in non-irradiated treatments for both eggs and larvae.


Different kind of irradiation, though, perhaps. The main point of that article was that virus loads were higher on dead-out comb than on honey super comb and that colonies with dead-out comb had lower honey yields.


----------



## deknow

...and looking at these levels in eggs and larva is quite different than looking at hive performance.


----------



## DPBsbees

My club runs an annual gamma radiation run to address equipment that has been, or has the potential to be, impacted by diseases with great success. The gamma radiation kills everything.


----------



## Dominic

deknow said:


> ...and looking at these levels in eggs and larva is quite different than looking at hive performance.


Yes, but hive performance was also looked at, as I mentioned. If you want a direct quote:



> Virus levels were higher in colonies with deadout comb than in colonies with comb from honey supers indicating significant levels of viruses do survive on comb from deadouts and these combs can reinfect colonies of honey bees hived into that equipment. *Virus inoculation resulting from comb from colonies that had died the previous winter resulted in significantly lower honey production than in colonies initiated from comb with little or no virus*.


Those are the two sentences that preceded the previous quote. As I had recapped in the previous post.

Edit: that article was about *electron beam irradiation*, not gamma irradiation. We don't have gamma irradiation treatments available around here, so I don't know much about it. The points about dead-out combs affecting colony performance apply to both electron beam irradiated and plain non-irradiated comb however.


----------



## Ian

Dominic said:


> An experiment presented in Apimondia 2012 (Québec city) showed that hives installed on irradiated comb actually had more viruses than those on comb that wasn't irradiated...
> 
> Impact of viruses on honey bee comb on the phenology of virus dynamics and impact of viruses on honey bee colony performance
> Rob Currie, Ph.D., professor and Head, Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
> 
> 
> Different kind of irradiation, though, perhaps. The main point of that article was that virus loads were higher on dead-out comb than on honey super comb and that colonies with dead-out comb had lower honey yields.


I sat in on one of Rob's presentations speaking of this study, he was scratching his head and completely baffled


----------



## wildbranch2007

deknow said:


> Mike, thanks for digging that up. I really learned a lot from Bob Harrison...his posts are always worth reading.


I learned quite a bit from him, he stopped posting a few years ago, I sure do miss his insight.


----------



## zhiv9

Dominic said:


> Yes, but hive performance was also looked at, as I mentioned. If you want a direct quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are the two sentences that preceded the previous quote. As I had recapped in the previous post.
> 
> Edit: that article was about *electron beam irradiation*, not gamma irradiation. We don't have gamma irradiation treatments available around here, so I don't know much about it. The points about dead-out combs affecting colony performance apply to both electron beam irradiated and plain non-irradiated comb however.


Perhaps irradiating the comb eliminates beneficial organisms as well and leaves the bees more vulnerable to viruses?


----------



## B&E

Michael Palmer said:


> Okay, but with varroa, some old pathogens suddenly become deadly. And did you listen to Jadczak in the video that Winevines posted in this thread? On May 26, in Maine, 2006, Dave's bees rolled 90 mites from a sample of 150 bees. 90! In May! Walking dead.


at what point in the video did he mention this high mite load? Can't find it


----------



## jwcarlson

B&E said:


> at what point in the video did he mention this high mite load? Can't find it


He doesn't mention him by name. Says that he called a guy who has been all over talking about neonics, even on 60 minutes had bees that rolled 70-90 mites in 150 bees on May 25th... called him and said "You've got to do something about these mites or you'll lose them all"... supposedly he did nothing and then told Tony he'd lost 80% already in a later conversation. It is pretty early in the talk.


----------



## B&E

jwcarlson said:


> He doesn't mention him by name. Says that he called a guy who has been all over talking about neonics, even on 60 minutes had bees that rolled 70-90 mites in 150 bees on May 25th... called him and said "You've got to do something about these mites or you'll lose them all"... supposedly he did nothing and then told he he'd lost 80% already in a later conversation. It is pretty early in the talk.


thanks, right, but what minute in the video is that?


----------



## B&E

found it


----------



## deknow

Karla, thanks for posting that. I've heard Tony say the same thing, but it really quashes the doubts to have it on record.


----------



## sqkcrk

Karla? Who is Karla?


----------



## deknow

Karla is Winevines.


----------



## sqkcrk

Thanks, Dean.


----------



## sqkcrk

Is This A Total Collapse Of The Beekeeping Industry?
http://www.theorganicview.com/uncategorized/is-this-a-total-collapse-of-the-bee-industry/


----------



## libhart

sqkcrk said:


> Is This A Total Collapse Of The Beekeeping Industry?
> http://www.theorganicview.com/uncategorized/is-this-a-total-collapse-of-the-bee-industry/


from the article...."Varroa mites are the least of our problems."

Wow. Just wow.


----------



## B&E

libhart said:


> from the article...."Varroa mites are the least of our problems."
> 
> Wow. Just wow.


I was just about to write the same thing....no mites. Wow.


----------



## B&E

sqkcrk said:


> Is This A Total Collapse Of The Beekeeping Industry?
> http://www.theorganicview.com/uncategorized/is-this-a-total-collapse-of-the-bee-industry/


Can anyone confirm what that says about Paramount's bees? Is that true?


----------



## jim lyon

Apart from The Organic View's in depth analysis, what are the latest bee reports out of Florida? I heard pepper was pretty good but I also heard some second hand reports of disappointing bees not making the trip west.


----------



## jim lyon

B&E said:


> Can anyone confirm what that says about Paramount's bees? Is that true?


Reports are they were quite disappointed with their Florida bees and personnel changes were being made.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> Is This A Total Collapse Of The Beekeeping Industry?
> http://www.theorganicview.com/uncategorized/is-this-a-total-collapse-of-the-bee-industry/


"On top of that, the Canadians only want to open the borders one way and that’s to let the Canadians in down here. Many of us would relish the idea of being able to go to Canada to put our bees in the woods. That’s the only wild area we’ve got left. At the rate that they are ripping up ground to plant more and more corn, it’s not sustainable to keep bees anyplace. Even here in Florida, they’re planting corn and growing it now."

Blah ha ha ha ha , put his bees in the woods?? Lol
He does not get the whole boarder issue... One way for packages UP
Who is this guy ?? Is Canada just a bunch of woods to southerners ?  lol


----------



## sqkcrk

US Commercial Beekeepers want the border open so they can take hives to blueberries.


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> "On top of that, the Canadians only want to open the borders one way and that’s to let the Canadians in down here. Many of us would relish the idea of being able to go to Canada to put our bees in the woods. That’s the only wild area we’ve got left. At the rate that they are ripping up ground to plant more and more corn, it’s not sustainable to keep bees anyplace. Even here in Florida, they’re planting corn and growing it now."
> 
> Blah ha ha ha ha , put his bees in the woods?? Lol
> He does not get the whole boarder issue... One way for packages UP
> Who is this guy ?? Is Canada just a bunch of woods to southerners ?  lol


The only downside would be if a some drunken lumberjack Canuk wearing a touque with a pom-pom on top crashed into his mite free hives while ripping across the frozen landscape of Canada on his snowmobile in late June.


----------



## Ian

sqkcrk said:


> US Commercial Beekeepers want the border open so they can take hives to blueberries.


I'm sure they would,
But that's not the Canadian Beekeepers boarder debate right now,


----------



## Ian

B&E said:


> The only downside would be if a some drunken lumberjack Canuk wearing a touque with a pom-pom on top crashed into his mite free hives while ripping across the frozen landscape of Canada on his snowmobile in late June.


Who ya callen a Canuk? Lol


----------



## Barry Digman

Ian said:


> Who is this guy ?? Is Canada just a bunch of woods to southerners ?  lol


And Red Green and the McKenzie brothers.


----------



## Roland

Hackenberg irradiated half of JUST the equipment, and added bees to both groups. There was a dramatic difference between irradiated and not. No one claimed it solved ALL of the problems, but it clearly proved that there was a pathogen present. Following his lead, we built a containment vessel, and using an undisclosed agent, sterilized every super after extraction. We continued this for several years. It completely eliminated pathogen transfer in supers. The bees and moths did avoid any untreated supers. If top supering, they would actually bypass the old super below and filled the fresh sterilized super above first.

It had ZERO effect on mites or pesticides. 

It sure did make the first day larvae shiny again.

This did not cure all of the problems, but sure helped alot.

Crazy Roland


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> Who ya callen a Canuk? Lol


You! You Hoser!


----------



## Ian

B&E said:


> You! You Hoser!


Out for a rip bud?? 

But seriously, if he is trying to get away from Neinics by heading up to the sticks, best he keep heading north... around here, corn soy canola sunflower neonic city!


----------



## Michael Palmer

Sargent Preston to the rescue. Go Sky King, go.


----------



## B&E

Ian, you take the cake, made with gmo corn flour, of always having the longest threads. Nice work.


----------



## Ian

So, anyone talk to their grain farmer neighbours about them killing our bees yet??


----------



## B&E

Ian said:


> So, anyone talk to their grain farmer neighbours
> about them killing our bees yet??


It's way easier to just talk about them with reporters.


----------



## wildbranch2007

B&E said:


> I was just about to write the same thing....no mites. Wow.


I guess there will be a run on the ankle bitter bees now, and we will have to go back through all the posts on beesource and change the outcome to all the threads that said "my hives are dead what happened" and explain they didn't have ankle bitter bees.:lookout:


----------



## wildbranch2007

One of the other things to consider, even though he says mites are not a problem, and both the beeks that are complaining of their hives crashing were in NY from july-sept. NY last year had one of the best honey producing years in the last 15 years, some say they have never seen as much honey produced as they did last year. Now when you have a continuous flow all year I know what the beeks around me put off doing so they can get that last bit of honey into the supers. just some more anecdotal evidence not allowed in the court room.:shhhh:


----------



## Oldtimer

I noticed DH has a Wiki page devoted to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hackenberg


----------



## deknow

Roland, I don't doubt those results...I'm questioning the claim/supposition that it says anything about CCD.

I believe (as I said earlier) that it is (and has been since before ccd) that bees do great when installed on newly irradiated comb....and if you have some other effective sterilization procedure, it is probably showing the same.

So it isn't suprising that the bees did well on the irradiated comb....the question remains, 'is this increase in performance due to killing the pathogen (s) that are responsible for the specific condition (s) we refer to as CCD, or are we seeing a rather predictable increase in performance due to the known effects of irradiation comb?'

Also, one would expect that the spread between the two groups (irradiated and not) would increase with the microbial load in the comb....the older the comb, the more dramatic the difference between the two groups.

Now, before anyone accuses me of advocating constant sterilization, remember that in livestock it is well known (and is actively being phased out as a practice ) that feeding antibiotics leads to faster growth rates...and it's well understood that there are many unintended results that we are now dealing with.


----------



## Ian

deknow said:


> Now, before anyone accuses me of advocating constant sterilization, remember that in livestock it is well known (and is actively being phased out as a practice ) that feeding antibiotics leads to faster growth rates...and it's well understood that there are many unintended results that we are now dealing with.


As much as I hate that comment there is truth to it. I'm a large livestock producer and it no way reflects my operation, but these kind of conversations lead to broad sweeping generalizations. Those intensive farming chicken barns feed their stock med ration for their entire 6 month lifetime...our cows maybe gets a shot of med once or twice in their 15 year lifetime. Those chicken barns are SO sterile that even the feed coming into the building is sterilized... hence the ability to keep such a density. 

Now relate that to our bee industry practices.


----------



## Fusion_power

> for their entire 6 month lifetime


6 to 7 weeks is the cycle for most chickens raised for meat. Egg layers generally get a year, in some cases 2 years. One of the side effects of feeding antibiotics is that chickens reach marketable weight about a week sooner. Vertically integrated businesses like chicken producers are seriously worried about losing a week on each cycle.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Oldtimer said:


> Hmm well the financial returns on hive losses seem to be getting better every year. Can this cow be milked indefinitely, wonder what 2015 was?


so doing some basic math using the elap #, in 2014 the payout in NY for elap hives was $90 after discounting the first 17.5% off the losses. now I don't know what the payout for 2012 was but I would expect about the same numbers.
so I divided 131,724 by 90 and came out with 1464 hives add in the 17.5 percent that they don't pay you for that puts you at a rough number(actually really rough) of 1720 hives had to be reported as dead to collect the 131,724 dollars. So in retrospect I don't think this years losses are unusual. if you will note the amount of money kept doubling each year.

found what they paid in 2012 so this says $75 so that makes the number of hives go up but I'm not going back and re figure it out.



> FSA has established average fair market values per honeybee colony for 2012-2014 program years, as provided in the following table.Program YearHoneybee Colonies 2012 $75 2013 $85 2014 $80 ELAP payments for honeybee colony losses will be based on a minimum of 75 percent of the result of:• The number of honeybee colonies lost in excess of normal mortality (17.5 percent) due to an eligible adverse weather or loss condition, multiplied by• The average fair market value per honeybee colony for the applicable program year.


----------



## Oldtimer

It's surprising they would continue to give him cover when they pay out every year and no operative changes are being made at the business to attempt to do anything about it. :scratch:

Doubt any insurer in my country would renew after results like this.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Oldtimer said:


> It's surprising they would continue to give him cover when they pay out every year and no operative changes are being made at the business to attempt to do anything about it. :scratch:
> 
> Doubt any insurer in my country would renew after results like this.


I'm starting to get the feeling that's why they have become the spokesmen for the anti neonic crowd, it keeps the crowd fired up, they get the govt's ear and the govt keep funding ELAP. Actually one thing that would help change their business model is if all the big commercial outfits would put in for the payout, since they only alloc a finite amount of money, and the higher the number of dead out hives, the lower the payout per hive, at some point it would become uneconomical. so lets get on the stick next year all you large commercial beeks


----------



## jim lyon

I was gently scolded by a government official recently for not applying for ELAP assistance because my bees were in the flooded areas of east Texas this spring where you were eligible for feed assistance.


----------



## Broke-T

Fusion_power said:


> 6 to 7 weeks is the cycle for most chickens raised for meat. Egg layers generally get a year, in some cases 2 years. One of the side effects of feeding antibiotics is that chickens reach marketable weight about a week sooner. Vertically integrated businesses like chicken producers are seriously worried about losing a week on each cycle.


I have 4 broiler houses and they are not fed antibiotics on a routine basis. If they get sick we sometimes get medicated feed or antibiotics to run thru the water. More often than not they won't get anything.

Johnny


----------



## grozzie2

wildbranch2007 said:


> found what they paid in 2012 so this says $75 so that makes the number of hives go up but I'm not going back and re figure it out.


131724 / 75 = 1756 which is the ones they paid out on. So, if they dont pay for for the first 17.5%, they do pay for 82.5%, so the 1756 hives paid out equates to 82.5% of the loss. 1756 / 0.825 = 2128, the minimum number of hives you had to start with to get a payout of that size, assuming everything died.

Ofc, this depends a lot on the exact wording of how it works. If they dont pay for the first 17.5% of the losses, these numbers are close. BUT, if they dont pay for the first 17.5% of the total hives reported for the start of the period, the math would get a little more complicated. But here is a rough idea of where they will fall.

Report in the fall, 2400 hives. 17.5% of that is 420, so they wont pay for the first 420 dead ones. At 75 bucks a pop, they paid for 1756. 1756+420 = 2176 dead, which leaves 224 left alive, slightly under 10% survival rate.

I ran the numbers figuring from a 2400 starting point, because that's the number mentioned on the hackenburg apiaries website. I do find it rather intriguing, because the numbers left alive in that scenario are not far off the various third and fourth hand reports I've read online.

So, now for you folks that do split aggressively thru the season, here's my dumb question. If I have a couple hundred to start, how many packages do I have to buy after almonds in order to split the numbers back up to 2400 by fall reporting time ? No worries about equipment, got oodles of empty boxes with frames already sitting around, and the hives dont have to be boomers when I'm done splitting, just big enough to report as a live colony in the fall.

Really makes me start to wonder, is there almost as much money in letting bees die, as there is trucking them all over the country for pollination ? Sure is a lot less work...


----------



## Ian

Broke-T said:


> I have 4 broiler houses and they are not fed antibiotics on a routine basis. If they get sick we sometimes get medicated feed or antibiotics to run thru the water. More often than not they won't get anything.
> 
> Johnny


That's great to hear. And here I am running one of those same generalized comments...


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> I was gently scolded by a government official recently for not applying for ELAP assistance because my bees were in the flooded areas of east Texas this spring where you were eligible for feed assistance.


I had a person from FSA ask me, at the State Fair Honey Booth, why more beekeepers weren't taking advantage of the program. Imagine what would happen were every person who could claimed losses and got paid for them. Do you think the program would grow or get phased out?


----------



## jim lyon

No, they would most likely see that as proof of need. In my case I really did consider applying, it was a miserable spring with incredible amounts of rainfall and I did indeed use way more feed than we had ever used before. I know there were instances of bees actually washed away in floodwaters, I hope those folks did apply and I hope it resulted in some reimbursement.


----------



## Roland

Deknow wrote:

So it isn't suprising that the bees did well on the irradiated comb....the question remains, 'is this increase in performance due to killing the pathogen (s) that are responsible for the specific condition (s) we refer to as CCD, or are we seeing a rather predictable increase in performance due to the known effects of irradiation comb?'

So what increase in performance do you predict from irradiated comb? We saw an order of magnitude change in wintering and honey production. How do you explain that?

Crazy Roland


----------



## JRG13

Roland said:


> Deknow wrote:
> 
> So it isn't suprising that the bees did well on the irradiated comb....the question remains, 'is this increase in performance due to killing the pathogen (s) that are responsible for the specific condition (s) we refer to as CCD, or are we seeing a rather predictable increase in performance due to the known effects of irradiation comb?'
> 
> So what increase in performance do you predict from irradiated comb? We saw an order of magnitude change in wintering and honey production. How do you explain that?
> 
> Crazy Roland


Perhaps microbial balance was restored once everything started off clean?


----------



## deknow

Roland, JR....both your posts deserve more thorough replies than I can muster at the moment....and I'm driving tomorrow for probably 10 hours by the time I'm done. If I don't get back to this in the next few days, I will on Tuesday.


----------



## Ian

Roland said:


> So what increase in performance do you predict from irradiated comb? We saw an order of magnitude change in wintering and honey production. How do you explain that?
> 
> Crazy Roland


Are you implying an increase performance on irradiated comb as a rule, or are you speaking of an increase when irradiating the comb from CCD infected hives,


----------



## jean-marc

As a rule in my experience.

Jean-Marc


----------



## wildbranch2007

grozzie2 said:


> Really makes me start to wonder, is there almost as much money in letting bees die, as there is trucking them all over the country for pollination ? Sure is a lot less work...


 that's why I have deduced it's a management decision and not a problem. At one of the AIAC meetings one of the largest ELAP beeks said he had ordered two truck loads after Almonds to be shipped in, If I remember correctly for $150 per hive. so take the elap money in 2014 $80 dollars and apply it to the hive, that means the hive cost you $70, his first pollination contract pays that, how long the hive last in the rest of the pollination contract is almost pure profit minus the trucks and labor, and at the end of the year, you report it to the govt, and they give you another shot of cash. so in reality the hive costs you nothing, so we have to keep the neonic propaganda alive to keep the easy money flowing.


----------



## jim lyon

I know of one beekeeper who followed a plan similar to that outlined above. I won't imply that he wanted it to work out that way as I think he's a pretty diligent beekeeper but that's essentially how it came down. The thing that puzzles me, though, is that the guy that's done pretty well selling a boat load of quality singles each year is somehow getting it done in Florida where the op's article claims beekeeping is collapsing.


----------



## Ian

jean-marc said:


> As a rule in my experience.
> 
> Jean-Marc


How many year rotation do you see these performance improvements ?


----------



## winevines

deknow said:


> Karla, thanks for posting that. I've heard Tony say the same thing, but it really quashes the doubts to have it on record.


Your are very welcome. I am glad to have found it, and for the folks in NJ who take the time and effort to post some great videos. I know it takes time- and sometimes it takes a long time to watch a video of a talk that is nowhere near as dynamic as it is live- but a great way to get some good information out there.


----------



## Roland

Ian - the quote is from Deknow, and we must patiently and respectfully wait for him to get time for a propper reply.

Crazy Roland


----------



## jean-marc

Ian: The improvements are immediate. We do not do it on a strict rotational basis. We irradiate dead-outs, ut not all years.

Jean-Marc


----------



## wildbranch2007

this topic seems to be getting rather interesting on bee-l here are a couple of interesting posts with relevant information



> As for beekeepers, I would like to address your thoughts and Franks earlier comments at the same time. First, as it stands now we have a lot of very good beekeepers here in the Midwest, and all over with a lot of hives in areas full of neonics. Including a few million acres of Canadian prairie. None of these guys are standing up and whining. There were some issues with planter dust, and those beekeepers said so, and were quickly addressed. But back to this case in particular. We have a beekeeper in the Northeast, not exactly the land of neonics. Who goes into blueberries, which we all know are hard on bees, and fails. Not once but repeatedly. And collects ELAP checks in the process.
> 
> Now Said beekeeper is NOT anywhere near the only one in the area, My good friend sent 2 loads right next to Davies last summer, When the hives started looking bad from lack of forage he was offered ELAP paperwork. When he declined. The fed them up and hit them with tera, and the bees came out fine.
> 
> Then we have the grower for said beekeeper, who has a public interview out and said hes baffled, they don't spray any neonics on the fields...


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1601&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=210189



> Christina, the "facts" of this matter can be divided into two groups--those
> that you hear from some of those beekeepers, and then the truth. The truth
> tends to be well known in the commercial industry, and we know when someone
> is exhibiting a bit of mendacity, such as when they file for ELAP payments,
> and beg an apiary inspector to say that their losses were due to CCD, when
> they obviously were due to something else. I've spoken to inspectors and
> extension agents who regularly signed off on CCD certification when they
> knew full well that it wasn't CCD (or pesticides) that was the cause.
> 
> Re ELAP payments for CCD, such payments specifically exclude losses due to
> pesticides. So those that collect such taxpayer money, while at the same
> time publicly blaming their losses on pesticides are playing a dangerous
> game. The Feds could take them to court for fraudulently making claims.
> 
> And some of the huge losses that you cite are in private, readily admitted
> to be due to screwing up on varroa management.
> 
> I don't want to name names. But, for example, at one commercial beekeeper
> meeting in which I was in attendance, one large operator described how he
> screwed up on varroa that summer and lost a large proportion of his
> colonies. The next week he was featured in the state's ag newspaper,
> telling how hard he had just been hit by CCD.
> 
> One of the operators that you cite lied to my face when I asked him what he
> had done differently when he didn't experience losses one year (after
> several years of consistent losses to CCD). He said that he had made
> absolutely no changes in his management, and that it was purely due to
> fewer neonics being applied that year (no supporting evidence). The next
> week when I asked his lead man, the lead man told me that they had in fact
> done better since they had doubled their feeding of syrup and pollen sub,
> and increased mite treatments from once a season to four times.
> 
> And the largest individual loss to CCD was clearly due to failure at varroa
> management.


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1601&L=bee-l&F=&S=&P=210903

maybe this thread should be sent to the usda:lpf:


----------



## Michael Palmer

"I don't want to name names. But".... One of the operators that you cite lied to my face when I asked him what he
had done".....

One lied to me, also. He was selling nucleus colonies all over New England...supposedly 1000. Many broke down with AFB and EFB. I confronted him about sending Tylan nucs to unsuspecting hobby beekeepers. He said he doesn't use Tylosin...against the BMP of Florida. Half an hour later, the MA inspector (my old buddy..RIP) showed me the guy's inspection report. AFB severely resistant to Terramycin. Big Lie! If he wasn't using Tylosin he wouldn't have bees. Now he's out of bees, and it seems that he sold his operation at the right time


----------



## deknow

When this came up a few years ago, it was brought up at our beeclub bod meeting (by the President of the club) with an eye roll that these bees were being unfairly disparaged on the onternet...I wasnt confronted at the time, but I did get a voicemail from the beekeeper in question....berating me for baseless concerns (I had done my homework with more than one beekeeper with experience with these nucs), a d telling me it was going to be my fault that he wouldn't sell these bees to hobbyists anymore because of the hassles of dealing with people like me...and that in the future he would only sell to commercial beekeepers. In the end, there were problems with the nucs, and they probably should go to operations where it is understood that antibiotics are required for them.


----------



## Ian

Maybe we all should start labeling all beekeeping problems with CCD, it seems to be the only term anyone BUT Beekeepers understand ................... and then blame that CCD on pesticides.


----------



## sqkcrk

Aren't people already doing that, Ian?


----------



## Ian

We need to change that direction


----------



## bentonbee

Does anyone know if there have been studies done about how the fungicides they spray on field corn affect the bees?
I know they do not spray fungicide every year, but some years....
Mike in Iowa


----------



## Ian

We do not use fungicide on the corn up here, even if we did, how would that affect the bees?


----------



## bentonbee

I don't know how it would affect the bees Ian. I have to wonder. They spray fungicide on the corn around my bees in Iowa. It is designed to kill fungus and we may not know how it affects these tiny creatures as they bring the pollen in from the corn that was sprayed...so I asked the question had it ever been studied? I was listening to video the other day of a prominent beekeeper who asked the same question.


----------



## Ian

Corn pollen is not very attractive to bees

Canola however


----------



## B&E

Correct, but it is incorrect to say that bees will not forage corn. If the variety is right and the weather right, they will go really hard at it even when plenty of excellent other floral sources are available.


----------



## bentonbee

B&E said:


> Correct, but it is incorrect to say that bees will not forage corn. If the variety is right and the weather right, they will go really hard at it even when plenty of excellent other floral sources are available.


B&E... I agree!


----------



## cheryl1

My bees are on a cornfield edge that gets sprayed with fungicide. They notify me the day before, I close up the entrances and leave them closed until several hours after they are done spraying. I know it's just anecdotal, but I've had no problems


----------



## Fusion_power

> Corn pollen is not very attractive to bees


Total opposite down here, corn pollen is highly attractive, probably because it is the only thing producing abundant pollen at that time.


----------



## Ian

Fusion_power said:


> Total opposite down here, corn pollen is highly attractive, probably because it is the only thing producing abundant pollen at that time.


Got patties on them hives during that time of corn foraging ?


----------



## Michael Palmer

bentonbee said:


> Does anyone know if there have been studies done about how the fungicides they spray on field corn affect the bees?


I don't know about fungicides on corn, but Jim Frasier at Penn State did a study on fungicides in apple pollen. He found that when bees were fed apple pollen with fungicide....I believe it was trapped pollen...the bees' hypopharyngeal atrophied.


----------



## jim lyon

I haven't heard of corn fungicides being used in our semi arid climate on the western edge of the corn belt. My understanding is that blights and wilts are more of a problem in wetter climates. It certainly may qualify as an additional stressor though IF there is any corn foraging occuring in your area. My regular forays into corn fields at tasseling time have shown that finding bees working corn is a rare occurance.


----------



## JSL

Reed Johnson at Ohio State has looked at the interactions between commonly used miticides, crop pesticides, and fungicides. The interactions between the compounds and their synergistic effects are interesting.


----------



## Bdfarmer555

Should be a reduction in fungicides applied to corn in the next year or so. With lower corn prices, there's less ROI from a fungicide application.


----------

