# CCD Research



## CesarBeeCool

An interesting article on CCD.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine...se-disorder/nXvIA5I6IcxFRxEOc8tpFI/story.html


----------



## Kidbeeyoz

Agree.


----------



## jim lyon

A thought provoking critique:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-harvard-study-on-neonicotinoids-and-ccd/


----------



## WLC

"One California beekeeper was especially strident, going to great lengths to try to discredit their study."

Now we know who it was. 

Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.

My opinion: mediocre paper, good hypothesis.

Since mercury was found in HFCS years back, it makes sense to check it for other contaminants from time to time.


----------



## CLICKBANGBANG

Dosing bees with 40 times realistic exposure (after the bees didn't respond to normal testing) doesn't really sound like an accurate field study.


----------



## WLC

We've discussed this before here on BeeSource.

Their experimental design was 'Doo Doo'. 

However, despite Randy's vehement objections, it sold very well in Italy.


----------



## camero7

> Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.


not true.let's stick to the facts please. I was very involved in the publication of the study, got one of the first copies and Randy did not publish his objections until the study was published.


----------



## WLC

Not accurate:

Both Randy and Jerry were throwing 'tomatoes' at the study before it was published.

They both crossed the line into Scientific Supression, and both now have clear Bayer ties.

They're both 'BeeWashers'.

Nope, they can't get away with it.


----------



## camero7

Absolutely disagree. Sorry you're so short sighted you can't see the truth when it's right in front of you. I know both beekeepers in this study and have pretty good insight into the study. It sucks and has not merit. All it proves is that insecticide kills bees. Big news!


----------



## WLC

camero:

Both Randy and Jerry Hayes are on the circuit.

If you're a US beekeeping club, I suggest that you book them.

Both the "Spread" and club donations are covered.

It's the way the PR machine works.

No, I'm not wrong. Randy tried to suppress the Harvard study, no matter the flaws.

He's a BeeWasher through and through.


----------



## sqkcrk

"BeeWasher"? Never heard that term before.


----------



## wildbranch2007

sqkcrk said:


> "BeeWasher"? Never heard that term before.


term made up by wlc, camero7 is correct and far more informed on this study than wlc, seems he wants to be on the pr machine and can't catch a ride. the study was done in his area, the inspector is in his area, if you have any doubts please go to bee-l and do some searches, all the info is there and they even have date time stamps for those that need it.


----------



## JStinson

> They both crossed the line into Scientific Supression, and both now have clear Bayer ties.


That doesn't make his critique of the study any less relevant.


----------



## gmcharlie

Randy did what most researchers don't... he actually went to the fields... where millions of us are dealing with the "issues" every day and have great bees..... WLC lives in a bubble... of his own makeing...... HUGE respect for Randy and His work... dealing with REALITY,, not some strange fantasy of going back to the dark ages...


----------



## WLC

Nope:

Not a chance. I know the study, I do read the 'Journal of Insectology', both in English and Italian, and quite frankly...

I understnd both the flaws and brilliance, of the paper's hypothesis.

Randy attacted a paper before it's publication.

He committed an 'unforgivable' act as a, so called, scientist.

First, he worked on a field test of a Monsanto transgenic agent. Then, he transgressed against a fellow scientist, then he committed to tests for Bayer. And then, he misrepresented facts in an article concerning neonicics.

As for the PR machine...

They should be more concerned about...


----------



## camero7

Can't reason with stupidity


----------



## WLC

How dare you.


----------



## JStinson

> First, he worked on a field test of a Monsanto transgenic agent.


I hardly think product testing is a reason to doubt his credentials.



> he transgressed against a fellow scientist


If a person calls themselves a scientist, then deviates from established scientific method and publishes those studies as sound science, the scientific community has a right to "transgress" against them. 

Who would you prefer that Bayer get to test their products? If I had a pesticide company, I would absolutely be beating down the door of someone like Randy. You want people with experience in bees _and_ scientific methodology...not some fresh biology major who just installed his first package.


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC I have been involved in research for almost 40 years. The Harvard study is so poorly done that it is only a black eye for Harvard. Whether or not you agree with Randy Oliver or Jerry Bromenshenk ,if you accept the data from that Harvard study you really are very poorly educated on the protocols of research. I think you accept it because it tells you what you want to hear. 
Dave


----------



## WLC

You cannot try to stop a scientific publication before it's released by a journal (which utlimately published it) because that IS suppression of scientific inquiry.

He wasn't a reviewer, ref, or editor.

It's BeeWashing.


----------



## Ian

lips are flappen behind a tag name


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> He's a BeeWasher.


Like a "whitewasher"? I would think that name calling would be below someone like yorself.


----------



## WLC

'BeeWashing' is a new term for the PR campaign denying that GM/neonics are harmful to bees.

It's much easier to say BeeWasher, than the rest of the definition.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Ian said:


> lips are flappen behind a tag name


and some people use different tags on different lists. below is just a little of the information from bee-l about the subject after it was published in articles, decide for your self.



http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


>if you would like to see exactly what randy asked the authors after the paper had been published.



Since the authors of the "Harvard" study have declined to answer the
list of questions that I submitted to them, and since the Bulletin of
Insectology does not publish letters to the editor, I've decided to
put a slightly abbreviated, and annotized, list of my questions out
for discussion.

I aplologize that all formatting has been lost. I plan to post a
formatted version to my website.

Randy Oliver

THE QUESTIONS
[I have also added a few comments italicized in brackets]
Readers will likely wish to have a copy of the study at hand. It can
be freely downloaded at
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-099-106lu.pdf


> these discussions were after the below presentation






Parts/Attachments 
text/plain (13 lines) 




http://worcestercountybeekeepers.co...lication-of-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder

...this is a March 10 presentation by Dr. Lu, the lead author of the Harvard School of Public Health study to the WCBA.

deknow


>and the first entry that I can find posted by Randy oliver about the subject


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...=A&I=-3&J=on&K=2&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4

> much more information just do a search with Harvard as the subject

i find it unfortunate that the press, including both of our national bee
journals, gave publicity to this paper without any sort of critical
analysis. Such messages only confuse the public. Pesticides are a major
issue to the beekeeping community. What we need are well designed and
executed studies, (as well as better enforcement of pesticide law) in order
to solve these problems. Sadly, this study just confuses the issues.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> ' It's much easier to say BeeWasher, than the rest of the definition.


Which is what? I apologize for being slow. I didn't find this term in the Beekeeping Terminology List.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> 'BeeWashing' is a new term for the PR campaign denying that GM/neonics are harmful to bees.
> 
> It's much easier to say BeeWasher, than the rest of the definition.


New term huh. Who started it? I trust you apply this equally to the far, far more widespread pseudo-scientific campaign aimed generically at all things agri-business. "GM/Neonics"???? Do you really think it's responsible to just lump these two entirely different topics together as if they are one???? I think it's unconscionable that anyone trying to do a reasoned and responsible analysis of CCD and what it is or isn't gets branded a pro Bayer, Monsanto or Syngenta person and their research is casually passed off as being bought and paid for by agribusiness by(even more ironically) folks that have such biased agendas of their own.


----------



## ArtSmart

Personally, being far from "bee politics" and not really knowing anybody here, I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides. There is an obvious conflict of interests there. Insecticide are by definition designed to harm/kill insects - bee keeper again by definition is supposed to care about well being of the insects in his care. But that's just me. One thing is for sure, with the European ban being implemented in two years one of the sides is going to have much less to say on the subject. If the bees in Europe make a significant comeback, the people who beat themselves in the chest in the name of the scientific progress and so eagerly display their scholarly prowess won't be so eager to stand together with big poison manufacturers. If there is no noticeable change, the other side would have to go down the road talking to itself.


----------



## jim lyon

ArtSmart said:


> Personally, being far from "bee politics" and not really knowing anybody here, I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides. There is an obvious conflict of interests there. Insecticide are by definition designed to harm/kill insects - bee keeper again by definition is supposed to care about well being of the insects in his care.


This is what I am referring to. It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees. I kept bees back in the heyday of foliar spraying in the 70's and 80's and experienced massive kills by sprays designed to kill any insect they contact. Yet those like me are being branded as being pro-pesticide for pointing out that it's quite possible that neonics may be safer than some of the alternatives. We can all dream of a beekeeping world where no pesticides exist but the reality is that will never happen. Beekeepers are just one part of a larger and more complex agricultural picture.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> This is what I am referring to. It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees. I kept bees back in the heyday of foliar spraying in the 70's and 80's and experienced massive kills by sprays designed to kill any insect they contact. Yet those like me are being branded as being pro-pesticide for pointing out that it's quite possible that neonics may be safer than some of the alternatives. We can all dream of a beekeeping world where no pesticides exist but the reality is that will never happen. Beekeepers are just one part of a larger and more complex agricultural picture.


well said Jim


----------



## sqkcrk

ArtSmart said:


> I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides.


Who is doing that? WLC? Randy Oliver? Who are you refering to?

I used mitecides to address varroa mites. Do you?


----------



## Ian

ArtSmart said:


> Personally, being far from "bee politics" and not really knowing anybody here, I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides. There is an obvious conflict of interests there. Insecticide are by definition designed to harm/kill insects - bee keeper again by definition is supposed to care about well being of the insects in his care.


what about a beekeeper, who is also a grain farmer...?

we have just finished spraying our land twice with insecticide to kill off the flea beetle, cold wet weather delayed our plant growth, our two week flea beetle coverage with the neonic treated seed was not long enough and the beetles were chewing our fields apart.

So this beekeeper sprayed for bugs,


----------



## WLC

'BeeWashing' is a term started by an author writing about Monsanto's Honey Bee Advisory Council (or was it a board?).

It describes pretty much what the Council accomplished. "It's them Varroa!" they say, not pesticides.

As for Randy's views on the EU neonic ban, we can pretty much surmise that he's saying that there's no proof that neonics cause bee deaths.

What he's not saying is that there is evidence for translocation of pesticide contaminated talc dust, and that it's an environmental pollutant that can kill bees, among other organisms.

That's BeeWashing.

Regardless, the Harvard study was a big hit, and it's results were reported far and wide, 'Neonics cause CCD!'

I can understand why Randy was upset by the headlines.


----------



## tibadoe

Interesting article.


----------



## WLC

Here's some links that show how the term 'bee-washing' originated.

http://www.honeycolony.com/article/pesticide-producers-turn-to-bee-washing-to-fight-backlash/

http://www.panna.org/blog/buzz-monsanto

https://www.facebook.com/MillionsAgainstMonsantoToronto/posts/263433570464561


----------



## Lburou

gmcharlie said:


> randy did what most researchers don't... He actually went to the fields... Where millions of us are dealing with the "issues" every day and have great bees..... Snip...... Huge respect for randy and his work...


x2


----------



## ArtSmart

sqkcrk said:


> Who are you refering to?


 I'm referring to whomever is a bee keeper and advocating the use of pesticides. But if the boot fits... as I said I don't know anybody here. And no I don't use any chemicals (natural or otherwise) to treat my bees.




jim lyon said:


> Beekeepers are just one part of a larger and more complex agricultural picture.


 This is one ugly picture. I personally don't want to be a part of it.

Jeesh, you three amigos were really happy to jump on my case and pat each other on the back for a good comeback. However I don't see anything in what you are saying to contradict anything I wrote. You said that
: _"It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees."_ and another gentlemen was wringing his hands agonizing between his grain harvest and his bees. This is a perfect illustration for my statement of conflict of interests. If you are purely a beekeeper you won't be satisfied with the idea of anybody using anything that is "least" harmful for your bees. On the other hand, it you have vested interest in making money of the crop you would have interest in getting adequate return on your investment in which scenario bees become just one very small part of the equation. By itself it is neither bad or good. There can be numerous explanations about hardships of the modern farmer, the public dependance on the fruits of your labor, staying abreast with progress etc. However all that doesn't change the fact that you are impartial in the matter. It is a fact. And as John Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things"


----------



## sqkcrk

ArtSmart,
Welcome to the beesource family,

If you see my quest for clarification and understanding as "jump[ing] on [your] case" that wasn't my intention. Not my doing. Thanks for your reply.

Do you see Randy Oliver's search for the facts as advocating the use of pesticides?
Do you grow all of your own food?
If you or anyone else can live eating food that has been grown never having any kind of pesticide, fungicide or whatever applied to it while growing that is only because or your wealth of circumstance. Only a select few in this World will find themselves in that category.


----------



## WLC

What some of you are ignoring is that Lu has replicated his study, and will hopefully publish his findings sooner than later.

Some of you aren't aware of the French hypothesis concerning the cause of CCD. They hypothesized that neonic contaminated honey stores were the cause.

Alex Lu found something similar in his first study.

That's something the bee-washers dread: proof of the French hypothesis.


----------



## sqkcrk

I gotta say that I don't respond well to name calling. For instance "you three amigos" and "Beewasher". Like the "old farts" comments from another newcomer, such name calling implies a certain disdain, or an unestablished and assumed familiarity between the parties, for those one may disagree with.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> What some of you are ignoring is that Lu has replicated his study, and will hopefully publish his findings sooner than later.
> 
> Some of you aren't aware of the French hypothesis concerning the cause of CCD. They felt that neonic contaminated honey stores were the cause.
> 
> Alex Lu found something similar in his first study.
> 
> That's something the bee-washers dread: proof of the French hypothesis.


"felt"? Since when is what one feels a substitute for established fact or proof? Are scientists now accepting a level of faith as good enough to maintain what a condition or effect is?


----------



## sqkcrk

Yes, I did. I now understand what you mean when you use it. Pardon my nitpicking please. I'm sure to those of greater understanding of things it is a bother.


----------



## VeggieGardener

sqkcrk said:


> I gotta say that I don't respond well to name calling. For instance "you three amigos" and "Beewasher". Like the "old farts" comments from another newcomer, such name calling implies a certain disdain, or an unestablished and assumed familiarity between the parties, for those one may disagree with.


I feel likewise but that is something that seems to be common around here and not reserved to the newcomers... from the use of terms like "beehavers" to "beewashers" and it usually comes across to me as more of an attempt to ridicule than to inform or correspond, but then that attitude here seems to extend beyond just the name calling.


----------



## Barry

ArtSmart said:


> _"It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees."_ and another gentlemen was wringing his hands agonizing between his grain harvest and his bees. This is a perfect illustration for my statement of conflict of interests. If you are purely a beekeeper you won't be satisfied with the idea of anybody using anything that is "least" harmful for your bees. On the other hand, it you have vested interest in making money of the crop you would have interest in getting adequate return on your investment in which scenario bees become just one very small part of the equation. By itself it is neither bad or good. There can be numerous explanations about hardships of the modern farmer, the public dependance on the fruits of your labor, staying abreast with progress etc. However all that doesn't change the fact that you are impartial in the matter. It is a fact. And as John Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things"


Jim's statement is far less impartial than some on here. How can anyone ONLY be concerned about their little piece of the big picture? Beekeeping is not done in a vacuum, it's one little part of the whole.


----------



## WLC

I wouldn't characterize being both a farmer and a beekeeper as the kind of conflict of interest where one needs to recluse oneself from a debate.

However, I would say that there's a definite conflict of interest when one has relationships for consideration with Monsanto, Bayer, etc., and then misrepresents, or suppresses, the facts of a very controversial issue.

Jim and Ian aren't in the wrong.

I have no mental reservations when stepping up to defend Alex Lu's right to scientific inquiry that's free from 'conflicted' interference.


----------



## ArtSmart

sqkcrk said:


> Do you see Randy Oliver's search for the facts as advocating the use of pesticides?


I don't believe I said anything to that effect. Especially considering the fact that I don't know any Randy Olivers. If he wants to search for facts - more power to him.




sqkcrk said:


> Do you grow all of your own food?


It is irrelevant to what I said. And I believe I already stated that. Whatever I eat or not eat, however the circumstances are difficult for farmers, whether we all going to die of starvation if farmers stop using pesticides - all that is completely irrelevant to what I said. I said that a person who have financial interest in any matter will be always biased toward protecting that interest. I believe the statement is pretty straightforward and easy to understand even for a child (not calling you a child here though)

Lastly sorry to call you an amigo. No disdain was intended (one of my favorite movies after all) neither I'm familiar with you well enough to come to the conclusion that you are an amigo material.


----------



## ArtSmart

Barry said:


> Jim's statement is far less impartial than some on here.


First of all I never said that my statements are not biased. Second, the bias of my message doesn't automatically make somebody's opinion less biased. This is not like when you were a kid and said: "I know you are but who am I?" it made the argument of your opponent of less effect. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## gmcharlie

ArtSmart said:


> : _"It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees."_ and another gentlemen was wringing his hands agonizing between his grain harvest and his bees.


Hardly wring his hands, very pratical man..... thinking completly thru I take it then there are no bug killers in your house? no termite sprays in your ground, no ant poisens in the cupboards? Agriculture is a huge and complex issue. With worldwide implications. Right now Neonics are not proven to be a problem given the 3 million hives in the US, and the options are EXTREMLY ugly.......
You said you don't want to be part of the pictire, but yet here you are, painting away.....


----------



## WLC

"...Right now Neonics are not proven to be a problem given the 3 million hives in the US,..."

Pardon me, but neonic contaminated talc has been shown to be a problem here in the US. It's an environmental pollutant. Maybe a review of the Krupke/Perdue study is in order.

As for how Steve Ellis feels about his colony losses due to neonic dust...

Bee-washing is something that needs to be taken to task.


----------



## BigDawg

What's interesting to me is that while Bayer and Monsanto have made a big deal about their newly announced partnership to "tackle the varroa problem" why aren't they teaming up to investigate CCD? 

Maybe because A) they're afraid that the research will show their products are a big part of the cause and B) that they're trying to pin all the blame for CCD on varroa so as to keep the $3 billion a year in neonics sales.......


----------



## cerezha

WLC said:


> Not accurate:
> 
> Both Randy and Jerry were throwing 'tomatoes' at the study before it was published.
> 
> They both crossed the line into Scientific Supression, and both now have clear Bayer ties.
> 
> They're both 'BeeWashers'.
> 
> Nope, they can't get away with it.


 I hate to go personal, but I just discovered that University from which beekeeper graduated with bachelor degree (UC Irvine) have no entomology Department. I was not able to find if such Department existed at the time of graduation. Nothing personal.


----------



## ArtSmart

gmcharlie said:


> Right now Neonics are not proven to be a problem given the 3 million hives in the US


 Right here you nailed it. You are willing to point the gun into the woods and pull the trigger saying it is not proven that there are people there. Now consider a possibility that there is somebody there. There is always a chance. How come the reason and logic that makes sense in every day's life is thrown away in the case of our food supply? When something doesn't make sense more often than not money is involved. The fact that something is not proven doesn't mean that it is not true. You are willing to take a chance with other people health and the whole balance of nature because you have your money on the line. Which we all can relate to, but be honest, it is a chance, science has nothing to do with it. And everybody knows that in the long run it is a loosing bet including you. It is just a matter of time. But when (or if) it is proven without any doubt, they will come out with some new poison and there will be no proven link with some other environmental disaster and this particular poison for another 10 years.


----------



## jim lyon

Let me see if I understand. If I state that I don't believe Dr Lu's research proves that imadacloprid causes CCD then that means I am gambling with people's safety and I am the one motivated by greed? Im not asking anyone for a single dollar. Must I remind you who has the deep pockets in this discussion? It sure as heck ain't varroa destructor.


----------



## WLC

Bigdawg:

We've seen the first few posts go along just fine.

Then, they pitched to the 'go to' guy who went to great lengths to discredit the paper's findings.

It's a pattern that keeps repeating itself.

It's what the PR plan looks like in operation.

I doubt that any real solutions to our problems are part of the current plan.

It's all about deflect, delay, deny, and they're coming to a club near you.

Jerry Hayes was already in NYC. Who is next?


----------



## wildbranch2007

WLC said:


> What some of you are ignoring is that Lu has replicated his study, and will hopefully publish his findings sooner than later.
> 
> 
> .


its a very easy study to replicate, feed bees pesticides, if the bees don't die, bump up the level, if they still don't die, bump it up until they do. my my my


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> I hate to go personal, but I just discovered that University from which beekeeper graduated with bachelor degree (UC Irvine) have no entomology Department. I was not able to find if such Department existed at the time of graduation. Nothing personal.


I believe he has a graduate degree in perhaps marine biology if memory serves me correctly. Most importantly he has decades of beekeeping experience to go with his background. Do you feel that in some way discredits his work?


----------



## WLC

As I've been saying all along, it was a good research hypothesis.

Even though the study was imperfect, it had one very important finding: contaminated stores won't necessarily kill bees outright, but they will reduce overwintering survival.

It basically confirmed the 'French Hypothesis'.

We hear about contaminated wax, impacted pollen, etc. .

The effects on winter survival are the important find.

With overwinter losses at about 30% here in the U.S., the study is relevant.


----------



## TWall

So neonics get banned in the US, then what? Winter losses decrease as neonics levels in the hives decrease?

What is going to replace the neonics? Maybe farmers will go back to the good ol'days of the '70's and '80's Jim Lyon remembers so fondly.

I think some people feel the world should ban all pesticides just because they have bees now. Maybe those farmers would suggest you keep your bees on your property?

The question is not whether neonics, or any insecticide, will kill bees. The question is which ones have the smallest environmental impact. In the long-run, neonics impact bees much less than many of the insectides used in the past.

Tom


----------



## WLC

Lu isn't advocating for a ban. He's advocating for more responsible use.

How about we actually fix the neonic/pesticide talc problem first?

It's been going on for at least 10 years.

We don't need an advisory board for that.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> ... Do you feel that in some way discredits his work?


 This is what makes me uncomfortable - he just have no "work" published yet. He criticized other works, but he did not publish anything in peer-reviewed journals. In science it does not work this way. But, since he entered "scientific territory" he should obey our laws  If anybody wanted to criticize already published results, s/he must perform his/her own research and publish it in peer-reviewed journal. In such article the author has all rights to criticize others as long as it is based on hie/her own research. What really makes me uneasy is his famous "argument" that all results were not tested in the field and therefore have no credibility. But the thing is that nearly 99% of modern science is performed in the Lab. Even Monsanto grows their GMOs on the roof of their building - definitely not a "field". In the Lab we could use our sensitive equipment and control conditions. Except may be "earth sciences", most of our results have been obtained in the Lab. Even "fisheries" Mr. Oliver used (?) for his Masters Diploma were artificial and located on the territory of the University! I do not buy this argument at all!


----------



## cerezha

Dave Burrup said:


> ... I have been involved in research for almost 40 years. The Harvard study is so poorly done that it is only a black eye for Harvard. ...


 Dave, could you specify, what is wrong in this study? If you are a scientist, you must know that empty words mean nothing. It would be valuable for all beesource members to see an expert view on this paper.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> ... our two week flea beetle coverage with the neonic treated seed was not long enough and the beetles were chewing our fields apart. So this beekeeper sprayed for bugs,


 Interesting, you have protection using neonics only for 2 weeks? So, basically, you use neonics AND on top of it other insecticides! Horrible!


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> Dave, could you specify, what is wrong in this study?


Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/26607/bayer-says-bee-study-is-seriously-flawed.html


----------



## BigDawg

Well, if Bayer says the study is flawed then.......I mean it's not like they would have a vested interest in the outcome, right?



BlueDiamond said:


> Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/26607/bayer-says-bee-study-is-seriously-flawed.html


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> Last year Bayer explained the profoundly serious problems with the Harvard study: http://www.croplife.com/article/26607/bayer-says-bee-study-is-seriously-flawed.html


 I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.


----------



## BigDawg

As early as the 1950's, the Tobacco Industry knew that their products were carcinogenic--their own scientists told them so. Still, for decades they insisted that tobacco, and smoking in particular, did NOT cause cancer--and yet all along they KNEW that it did and they intentionally hid the truth in order to protect their profits.


"We have one essential job -- which can be simply said: Stop public panic ... There is only one problem–confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance,
and how to create it . . . And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths –
regardless of any pooh-poohing logic - every time they light a cigarette."
(Hill and Knowlton, 1953)

Statement released by the Tobacco Industry in 1954 in order to address rising health concerns about tobacco:

“Distinguished authorities point out:

1. That medical research of recent years indicates many possible causes of lung cancer.
2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
3. That there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.
4. That statistics purporting to link smoking with the disease could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern life. Indeed the
validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists.”
(TIRC, 1954)

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

Sound familiar?

Try this on for size:

"We have one essential job -- which can be simply said: Stop public panic ... There is only one problem–confidence, and how to establish it; public assurance,
and how to create it . . . And, most important, how to free millions of Americans from the guilty fear that is going to arise deep in their biological depths –
regardless of any pooh-poohing logic - every time they purchase a GMO product."

Or

Distinguished Bee authorities point out that:

1. That entomological research of recent years indicates many possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder.
2. That there is no agreement among the authorities regarding what the cause is.
3. That there is no proof that neonicotinoids is one of the causes.
4. That statistics purporting to link neonicontinoids with CCD could apply with equal force to any one of many other aspects of modern agriculture. Indeed the
validity of the statistics themselves are questioned by numerous scientists.”

It worked for Big Tobacco for decades, you'd have to be pretty darned naive to think that the neonics industry isn't using the same tactics when it comes to bee health and CCD......


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> What's interesting to me is that while Bayer and Monsanto have made a big deal about their newly announced partnership to "tackle the varroa problem" why aren't they teaming up to investigate CCD? Maybe because A) they're afraid that the research will show their products are a big part of the cause and B) that they're trying to pin all the blame for CCD on varroa so as to keep the $3 billion a year in neonics sales.......


I've never heard of a "newly announced partnership [between Bayer and Monsanto] to tackle the varroa problem". 

CCD prevalence doesn't correlate well with high vs low neonic usage areas in the USA, hence Bayer and Monsanto have no reason to believe neonics or GMO crops are associated with the prevalence of CCD. Both companies support efforts to improve bee health via planting flower strips in crop monocultural areas and finding new ways to lower varroa mite levels http://beecare.bayer.com/media-cent...w-way-of-protecting-bees-against-varroa-mites And in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTJBvu6OlHo Randy Oliver states: "When we're talking about varroa and bee health what we're really talking about it virus management and if you can keep the varroa population down the virus's are not normally as much of an issue."


----------



## WLC

BD:

I don't think that they're doing much of anything besides PR.

They planted 450 acres of pollinator friendly plants in California. However, there are 80 million acres of corn, and 70 million acres of soybeans planted here in the U.S. . 

Who knows how many million acres were taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) because it made more economic sense to plant GM crops.

450 acres can't make up for all of the land that was previously CRP and a benefit to pollinators and wildlife.


----------



## Dave Burrup

cerezha said:


> I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.


Cerezha my critique of the study mirrors Randy Oliver's. Randy is a very good, conscientious researcher.
Dave


----------



## WLC

Randy is a good Honeybee, Science writer.

However, he's not a professional scientist with institutional affiliations.

He had no business, under any circumstances, interferring with the publication of Lu's paper in the Bulletin of Insectology.

Randy is, for all intents and purposes, a Bayer spokesman.

It's a conflict of interest.


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC I think your critique of Randy Oliver is biased and way off base. Randy's research techniques are very thorough. The fact that you are so blatantly against him makes your opinion worthless to me.
Dave


----------



## deknow

cerezha said:


> I am sorry, Bayer is not a scientist. I was asking expert opinion from the scientist with 40 years expertise! It is different. I would also consider the scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal. If Bayer have something to say - they could publish an article.


Ive read the study carefully, it is trash. I know all 3 authors, and my direct questions were not answered. Dr Lu said he would be happy to answer the qustions through lettets to the editor of the journal that published the study. 
My email to the editor of the journal was answered with pointing out that the journal is only published.twice a year, and does not have a letter to the editor section.

I would be happy to share some of my notes, but no one with a brain and a little bit of context could take this study seriously.

Deknow


----------



## Barry

I always take anything someone posts with a grain of salt who uses/hides behind a cryptic User Name, especially in discussions like these, where judgments of character are being made.


----------



## jim lyon

Randy is a person with an opinion just like everyone else. He has a right to state that opinion anywhere he so chooses whether that be on his personal web site magazine publications or speaking engagements. His opinion does carry considerably more weight than, for example, folks posting on here. I think I know why that is. If this irks some in academia I doubt that he is losing any sleep over it.


----------



## WLC

This thread is about the Harvard study.

You know, the one that made big headlines and got a well deserved glowing write up in the Boston Globe?

Randy's critique of the Harvard study is biased due to his Monsanto/Bayer ties.

I'm simply pointing out that there's a conflict of interest, and that it's part of a PR campaign that has recently been termed 'Bee-Washing'.

I think that we can do better.


----------



## deknow

Scientists have no business telling anyone they do or dont have business to read and critique a study. 

Deknow


----------



## deknow

My critique of the study is not part of any pr campaign.

Deknow


----------



## WLC

Has anyone, besides myself, noticed that we've been completely deflected from the real issue?

Why did the Harvard study have such a big impact, flaws and all?

It was the hypothesis they were testing, and the overwintering mortality that resembled CCD (similar to the French studies).

In light of the recent, continent wide, neonic seed ban in the EU,

I'd say that Lu et al. were on the winning side.

Can we say 'Sore Losers' at this time?


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Throw all the tomatoes you please. Just don't call up the folks at "The Bulletin of Insectology".


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.


Errrr, Dr Lu was happy.to give presentations on the results and put out a press release as to the conclusions of the study before it was released.....and at the time the globe did a story based on the press release.

So the author and the institution can publish their results and seek press, yet fatal flaws in procedure and conclusions are off limits? 

Its also a no no to present that the bt in bt corn is used, not for the bt toxin, but as a was to inject neonics into the dna of the plant. 

Deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Please tell me that you didn't contact 'The Bulletin' to try and suppress the study.

I'm picking up on a bias towards Dr. Lu here.

When have any of you gone after a scientist before, like some of you did in the case of Dr. Lu?

Who instigated the 'lynching' of a U.S. scientist?

I don't think that it was you.


----------



## Dave Burrup

How did Liu determine that the colony crashes were not due to mites? Did he do anything to eliminate this threat? Did he do any counts to verify the number of mites present? Did he test the bees for virus infections? Without checking these problems he is only guessing that the crashes were due to imid.
Dave


----------



## deknow

QUOTE=WLC;965688]Dean:

Throw all the tomatoes you please. Just don't call up the folks at "The Bulletin of Insectology". [/QUOTE]
The editor of the journal did offer to allow me to submit a critique for peer review and possible publication. Unfortunately, at the time, with the deadline I would have to meet, I had too many other things going on to give it the attention it deserves. No one pays me for my time to do such things, and growing a business that pays for me to eat and live had to take priority.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy.to answer them in the beesourxe letters to the editor forum. Now, if that sounds like a disingenous offer given that there is no letter to the editor forum on beesource, I guess that would be fair, no?

Deknow


----------



## Richard Cryberg

We have a real world neonic test under way today. It is called the ban in Europe. I happen to like that I live in a country that regulates based on law and science. Europe often regulates based on who *****es and whines loudest and longest. In this case we get a free test due to Europe's regulation. I really wonder what excuses the anti pesticide folk will have in a couple of years when CCD is statistically the same in Europe as it is today? I suppose they will claim the problems that remain are due to residues in the fields and crops and hives. They will make such claims as long as any residue is detectable. And as analytical chem is better every day at detecting less and less of anything they can likely ride that horse for five years or more while they pray for another chemical to blame. At least rational people will recognize that no statistically significant change in CCD is no change and says that neonics are not the primary problem. Of course it is already clear neonics are not the primary problem.

If you will not sign a real name do not bother responding to me. People who will not sign a real name are afraid of being found to be frauds.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Dean:
> 
> Please tell me that you didn't contact 'The Bulletin' to try and suppress the study.
> 
> I'm picking up on a bias towards Dr. Lu here.
> 
> When have any of you gone after a scientist before, like some of you did in the case of Dr. Lu?
> 
> Who instigated the 'witchhunt'?
> 
> I don't think that it was you.



No. I attended two separate presentations by dr lu on the study. I emailed all 3 listed authors a few specific questions (like, if there were queens found in the collapsed hives.....a detail that is blurred between the study and the public presentarions).
dr lu replied that he would only amswer my questions in the letters to the editor section of the journal....which doesnt exist.

Deknow


----------



## WLC

Yet again, we're not addressing the question: why did the Harvard study have the impact that it did?

Deflection isn't a useful course of action in a discussion.


----------



## deknow

I contacted "the bulliten" after the lead study author told me to submit my questions to the journals letters to the editor section. I could find no was to do so on their website, so I contacted the journal to ask how to do so.

Next up.....Dean is accused of the crime of reading the study.

Deknow


----------



## WLC

So, they gave you the 'brushoff'?

It's a polite way of saying, it's none of your beeswax. 

Seriously, why do you think that so many U.S. scientists doing Honeybee research are publishing overseas?

It's because it's the last refuge. The shop is closed here in the U.S. .


----------



## D Coates

WLC said:


> So, they gave you the 'brushoff'?
> 
> It's a polite way of saying, it's none of your beeswax.
> 
> Seriously, why do you think that so many U.S. scientists doing Honeybee research are publishing overseas?
> 
> It's because it's the last refuge. The shop is closed here in the U.S. .


Europe, the last refuge of free speech? In Europe, feelings are considered as valid a repeatable scientific findings when it comes to this stuff. Deknow has been polite enough to answer your questions but you can't seem to take them at face value. I would not have even engaged as you're not actually listening, you're simply pushing your agenda. With you there's always a conspiracy afoot from unseen evil corporations to destroy...whatever cause you've taken up. 

I honestly feel sorry for you. Try taking a deep breath, turning off the computer, and going outside to enjoy the outdoors with your bees.


----------



## gmcharlie

ArtSmart said:


> Right here you nailed it. You are willing to point the gun into the woods and pull the trigger saying it is not proven that there are people there. Now consider a possibility that there is somebody there. There is always a chance. How come the reason and logic that makes sense in every day's life is thrown away in the case of our food supply? When something doesn't make sense more often than not money is involved. The fact that something is not proven doesn't mean that it is not true. You are willing to take a chance with other people health and the whole balance of nature because you have your money on the line. Which we all can relate to, but be honest, it is a chance, science has nothing to do with it. And everybody knows that in the long run it is a loosing bet including you. It is just a matter of time. But when (or if) it is proven without any doubt, they will come out with some new poison and there will be no proven link with some other environmental disaster and this particular poison for another 10 years.


Real easy, because the options are not only worse, but ludicrious........... If you yell fire in a crowded theater and there is none, its a crime, but who knows some day you may be right...

Right now a bunch of goofballs with no real stake in the game are screaming about something they are totaly clueless about.... 2 years ago it was cell phone towers.........

Sorry, but Most here screaming the loudest, have no real stake. they are not in Neonics areas, they only run a few hives, and they don't farm......Those that feed the world, are in the most part the most eco friendly people you will ever know, and do more on a DAILY basis to help feed and improve the world, and their own lives, than the sreaming clowns.

Guys like Tim Ives, Ron Householder myself and thousands of others are in the thickest areas of "the problem" and yet doing great... that doesn't matter to these "experts" Ask Tim which Scentist has been to his place, or responded to emails......

These guys are the same ones screaming about unsafe food, high prices, and goverment subsidies all in the same conversations. they have no answers other than to scream and whine about something they personaly are pretty clueless about, they site what they read as Fact, without regaurd to the methods or logics behind them.......


----------



## sqkcrk

Why is it that Threads about CCD, neonicetinoids, imidiclorprid, Monsanto, Bayer, and such seem to always deteriorate into I don't know what to call what they turn into?

It seems to me that if WLC can't trash Randy Oliver's reputation he wants us to agree w/ his point of view about Lu's study. It appears as though most of y'all don't think much of the study. Does that make you BeeWashers too.

Why did the study have the impact it did? Who the heck knows? Maybe the way things are done in Europe, especially France, has something to do w/ how the study had its impact. Maybe there was overwhelmingly more public/non-beekeeper support for the beekeepers, what they were suffering and what they wanted to see happen to what they perceived as their problem, supported by Mr. Lu's study.


----------



## sqkcrk

Why was Lu's study done at Harvard? Not exactly a Land Grant Ag School, is it?


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC said:


> Yet again, we're not addressing the question: why did the Harvard study have the impact that it did?
> 
> Deflection isn't a useful course of action in a discussion.


It had its effect because of the sensationlized media coverage it got, and because the general public knows nothing about how research should be conducted.
Dave


----------



## Dave Burrup

Dave Burrup said:


> How did Liu determine that the colony crashes were not due to mites? Did he do anything to eliminate this threat? Did he do any counts to verify the number of mites present? Did he test the bees for virus infections? Without checking these problems he is only guessing that the crashes were due to imid.
> Dave


You guys that think the Harvard study is so great wanted to know why I think it is a joke, well I posted my questions about the study, I would like to hear your answers. His conclusions that Imidicloprid was the cause of the colony crashes cannot be determined from the data he presented.

Dave


----------



## gmcharlie

Your right Mark, we do end up in the gutter with the discussion.... But I can tell you this, Randy's Objective review of the study has one again reminded me of the saying Garbage in, garbage out... and it pleases me to no end that Finaly these conversations are taking place. A lot of On the fence guys are actually reading and thinking for there own for once. Seems to me a while back these were completely one sided conversations.

I am tickled pink that once these garbage articles are posted, not everyone is climbing on board, and MANY are actually thinking and listening to the ones with a real information instead of quoteing someone elses works.


----------



## WLC

D. Coates:

"I honestly feel sorry for you. Try taking a deep breath, turning off the computer, and going outside to enjoy the outdoors with your bees."

I did. I had to smoke a queen out of a cage in one hive, and then add supers and a strap on another, all while hoping not to get struck by lightning.

And, of course, I got 8 messages on my phone while it was turned off.

...then, I get to read the latest responses. 

Besides, I already had this conversation with deknow a while ago.

sqkcrk:

You've got it backwards. Randy Oliver 'trashed' Alex Lu's reputation. Yes, he had some help.

Dave:

Yep, it's definitely 'science by newspaper'.

I did present my view on what has happened to US honeybee research as a result of certain precedents and events.

I agree, the experimental design was flawed in many ways.


----------



## deknow

...we end up in the gutter when people give over their critical thought to others. Believe what newspapers write about science (instead of reading it themselves).

Here is a pdf with some of my thoughts. Not every point will be clear (there are powerpoint slides, not an essay)...I'm happy to discuss these points with anyone that has actually read the study and is prepared to look back at it closely.

http://beeuntoothers.com/LuStudyCritique.pdf

I won't stoop down to those that defend the cult aspects of "science" over anything substantive...I think it's clear that i've looked at this very closely.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

We both know that I've read the study. I still think that it was mediocre at best. There's alot wrong with the media hype aspect, and the responses by some folks who should know better.

It was a completely hypothetical study.

I still think that it was a brilliant hypothesis that deserves to be revisited.

And, now that I understand Dr. Lu's description of what occurred, I can see the connection to the hypothesis, first proposed by the French, that it was contaminated stores that were causing overwintered colonies to collapse.

I, for one, eagerly await the publication of his follow-up study.

I'm not a scientific cultist, but I will object to a mob lynching when I see one occurring.


----------



## deknow

Even the reported basic bee management isn't believable as it is written up. Hives were full in May and never required swarm prevention, never superd, never spun frames out, never added empty comb....and they were all being fed all summer.

Nothing in the study write up even suggests that contaminated stores are on the minds of the authors. Nothing about the procedures (feeding pure HFCS to get hives up to weight for winter, feeding hives in December that had 15 full deep frames of capped stores in late September?

None of it makes any sense, and no explanation is offered...yet, Dr. Lu thinks policy should be changed based on such results?

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

Beyond the fact that neonics have never been documented to be present in hfcs an even more specific question is this. According to Bayer Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin have been the pesticides of choice for treating corn seed and that Imadacloprid has been used on fewer than 1% of corn acres in the past 8 years. Assuming this is true then why would those doing the Harvard study choose to lace HFCS with a chemical so rarely used in corn and how meaningful would the results really be.


----------



## WLC

I see the issue.

The major finding was that colonies overwintered with contaminated stores collapsed.

That's it.

Since we have a 30% over winter colony loss rate, it rang a bell with some folks.


----------



## deknow

Jim...it gets more weird if you actually read what the Discussion states:


> “By incorporating the findings from this in situ study and other reports, we
> have validated the study hypothesis in which the initial emergence of CCD in
> 2006/2007 coincided with the introduction of genetically engineered corn
> seeds treated with imiacloprid and other neonicotinoid insecticides.


It's an imaginary contaminant.

deknow


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> I see the issue.
> 
> The major finding was that colonies overwintered with contaminated stores collapsed.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> Since we have a 30% over winter colony loss rate, it rang a bell with some folks.


That is denied by two of the three study authors (including Dr. Lu). Ken (the beekeeper in the group) is the one that pointed out that the one surviving "treated" colony was clustered inside a feeder that likely had uncontaminated stores. This never made it to the write up of the study, and my suggestions to the other authors have fallen on deaf ears. Dr. Lu cites "transgenerational effects" (something that he studies in humans), the entomologist in the group thinks it is receptor binding during pupal stage.

Please quote where in the study (or in any publication) that Dr. Lu gives this any consideration or credence. It is obviously what happened...and the fall feeding with undosed HFCS created an uncontaminated honey cap, delaying the collapse.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...also note that although they could do their quality studies in their own lab and measure imidacloprid down to 0.5% in HFCS, they didn't bother to test what the bees were storing, or what was left in the abandonded hives.

Remeber, Dr. Lu is the only scientist I've ever heard of as calling Wikipedia "the gold standard" for anything...let alone a definition of CCD. We are dealing with a lack of care and science so extreme that it is hard to believe it is as bad as it is.

deknow


----------



## WLC

'Why the delayed collapse?" IS a major research question. Why didn't they just 'drop dead' upon feeding of high doses of pesticide?

We don't know.


----------



## WLC

Here's a quote from the article:

"So Lu, Warchol, and Callahan established new testing hives at three sites in 2012. They varied their methods somewhat, in part by testing bees’ exposure to both imidacloprid and another neonicotinoid called clothianidin. The results, they say, only reinforced their conclusion that pesticides are likely a major culprit behind colony collapse.

As last winter approached, the number of bees in all their test hives steadily dropped, which is normal for that time of year. But while the control hives started to rebound in January, the pesticide-treated hives did not. Lu is now finalizing the study in hopes of publishing the results in a journal soon. One factor he is investigating is whether neonicotinoids do more harm to honeybees in colder temperatures."

So, treated hives don't rebound. Hmmm.

I can't wait to see the new study.


----------



## deknow

They were fed laced hfcs in the hive while the bees were also foraging, diluting any of the hfcs they were using as food. None of this has anything to do with how nectar/pollen containing imidacloprid would handle it, and again, there is zero evidence that hfcs evercontained imidacloprid.
As I said before, all hives were.fed unlaced hfcs (in amounts we are not privy to) to get them up to weigjt....the honey cap was.pure, until.either the.bees got to the contaminated stuff, or were drawn through it by an absurd december feeding of hfcs/sugar patties above the.contaminated stores.


----------



## BlueDiamond

deknow said:


> We are dealing with a lack of care and science so extreme that it is hard to believe it is as bad as it is.


And to this day Harvard continues to promote Dr. Lu's neonic work as if it had not been widely questioned: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/searching-for-causes-of-bee-colony-collapse/


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Here's a quote from the article:


Quotes from the Boston Globe to tell us about the quality of the science?

There are two main papers in Boston, here is a quote from today's Boston Herald:


> Stiglitz, who also runs hives at a farm on Long Island, N.Y., the Fenway Victory Gardens and at the  InterContinental Hotel, said the year-round program is intended to be long-term. - See more at: http://bostonherald.com/entertainme...13/07/a_honey_of_an_idea#sthash.sUp61lps.dpuf


...but we don't have hives on Long Island, NY....we have hives about a mile or two (as the crow flies) from the rooftop where we were being interviewed....on Long Island in Boston Harbor. Even when you are being straight, it is hard to have a reporter get things right...when you are not straight, anything goes.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Am I the only one to understand that the original study's findings were hailed as a breakthrough; Dr. Lu has since been funded to do a follow up study, which will (hopefully) be published soon; and we now know that contaminated stores can cause overwintered colonies to collapse in the US?

I understand the findings. Harvard likes his work. The Boston Globe gave him a wonderful write up.

Fellas, get over it already.


----------



## deknow

> and we now know that contaminated stores can cause overwintered colonies to collapse in the US?


What about "stores" would make one think that "contamination" that would be acutely toxic if fed to caged bees would be less harmful to bees confined in the winter?
Contaminated HFCs has long been known to be toxic to bees (lots of off spec stuff killed a lot of bees.....HMF in this case). So you contaminate it with neonics and expect that because it is "stores" that the pesticide won't kill the bees? This is a breakthrough? On what planet?

deknow


----------



## deknow

....if the study authors were thinking about contaminated stores, don't you think they would have measured how much they were contaminated?

deknow


----------



## WLC

That bus left the gate.

Sour Grapes my man. inch:

Let's wait for the new study.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Am I the only one to understand that the original study's findings ...


I understand a lot of things...that Harvard advertised the results of the study before publication, released the study before publication, and used straight up press release as an article in the Harvard Crimson. None of this is science, and none of it is journalism.

deknow


----------



## BigDawg

I see lots of people dismissing the paper outright because of the dosage level of imidacloprid used, but did you actually read the paper, or are you just regurgitating the attacks and talking point against the paper put out by the pro-neonics folks?

Here's how he arrived at the dosage level:

"The range of dosages used in this study from 20 to 400 μg/kg were not only environmentally relevant to those reported imidacloprid levels by studies that are cited previous, but also lie within legally allowable levels, set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the tolerance of0.05 ppm (50 μg/kg) for corn (US CFR, 2010). Since there is no tolerance level for imidacloprid in HFCS, we applied a 10-fold concentrating factor, or 0.5 ppm (500μg/kg) of imidacloprid in HFCS, by taking into account the uptake by corn plants from seeds that are treated with imidacloprid. *The 10-fold concentrating factor is very conservative compared
to the reported average level of 47 mg/L of imidacloprid measured in guttation drops collected from corn seedlings germinated from commercial seeds obtained in 2008 coated with 0.5 mg/seed of imidacloprid (Girolami et al., 2009).* Considering that honey bees were diluting the concentrations of imidacloprid fed to the hives with natural nectars foraged during the HFCS feeding months (July to September), honey bees may have exposed to imidacloprid at the dosage lower than 20 μg/kg in which is sufficient to render mortality in honey bees. Therefore, we are confident that the imidacloprid dosages applied inthis study would be comparable, if not lower to those encountered by honey bees inside and outside of their hives. Nevertheless, the finding of the loss of honey bee hives at the levels as low as 20 μg/kg of imidacloprid in HFCS raises the question of whether there is a no-observed-adverse-effect-level of imidacloprid (and most likely of other neonicotinoids as well) for honey bees." 

So, what exactly is the issue with the dosage levels used during the research? Are those NOT the levels set by the EPA? Are you saying that the guttation drops level of 47mg is wrong?


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> That bus left the gate.
> Sour Grapes my man. inch:


Sour grapes over what? I was anxious to hear the results of the study (I knew about it for a long time). I was appalled when I attended the first presentation (before publication)....the well known, well respected, and smart bee scientist sitting next to me was also appalled.

Nothing would make me happier than to support the work some of my friends are involved in. There isn't much that I find more distasteful than trashing work that my friends are involved in. The truth and critical thought leaves me little in the way of options.

I've detailed many big problems with the study and the write up...you've defended it without offering details.

deknow


----------



## deknow

BigDawg said:


> So, what exactly is the issue with the dosage levels used during the research? Are those NOT the levels set by the EPA? Are you saying that the guttation drops level of 47mg is wrong?


That number (47ug/l) is based on corn seeds germinating in small contained pots, not planted in a field. HFCS is not made from corn guttation (which comes when the plant has almost no mass), it is made from kernels of corn (when the plant has a lot of mass, a lot later in its life cycle). The amount of imidacloprid the plant is treated with as a seed coating is constant. In a field, it is constantly dissapating, degrading, and being diluted within the plant as the plant grows and adds mass.
The big issue with the dosage is why it was changed part way through the study, and what was the thinking behind doing so. The quote you offer above about how the dosage was arrived at is curious because they came up with this dosage part way through the trial. These are not the dosages they initially started to test, and they offer no logic or reason for why it changed.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

You've basically run Dr. Alex Lu off of the Bee Club circuit (with some help).

He's doing fine.

Maybe he's just a poor presenter.

Regardless, he was a guest.

Sorry, but there's no excuse for how some of you have behaved towards the Doc.

No matter how I try, I can't make you understand.

Most of us have accepted his initial findings with some caveats.

From the article, it looks like they were able to redo the initial study, and they have found similar results.

We'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## BigDawg

Are there any issues with this peer-reviewed/published article on the sub-lethal effects of neonics as a factor in CCD?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.full?sid=7394420e-97e0-410c-99b1-f731e6d993eb


----------



## BigDawg

Or what about this peer-reviewed and published article: Field Research on Bees Raises Concern About Low-Dose Pesticides

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6076/1555.summary


----------



## deknow

Hold on a second.

In his presentation he trashed some other work...work that he didn't understand...not hard work to understand.

He critiqued the phorid fly study directly...stating that the authors claimed that the phorid fly was the cause of CCD (they didn't). He claimed that we didn't know who would fund such a study (the published study lists the funding sources).

I am not making fun of Dr. Lu's accent or speaking style....my Chinese is limited to counting to two...in Japanese  ...just trying to accurately transcribe what he said:

Dr. Lu:


> “They actually published the paper...the paper got
> published”. “Never really able to demonstrate that worm
> were able to trigger CCD...so why did he make a
> publication like that


(audience member shouts out, "Grant Money"
Dr. Lu:


> yeah, didn’t know who actually
> supported that study, right?


...from the study itself:


> Funding
> :
> United States National Science Foundation grant DEB
> -
> 1025922 supported BB. JD was supported by the Howard Hughes
> Medical Institute. CR was supported by a
> Genetech
> Graduate
> Student Fellowship and Project
> Apis
> m. JH and CS were supported
> by a California State University Program for Education and
> Research in Biotechnology Faculty
> -
> Student Seed Research grant.
> The funders had no role in study design, data collection and
> analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


----------



## deknow

BigDawg said:


> Are there any issues with this peer-reviewed/published article on the sub-lethal effects of neonics as a factor in CCD?
> {url]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6079/348.full?sid=7394420e-97e0-410c-99b1-f731e6d993eb[/url]





> Nonlethal exposure of honey bees to thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid systemic pesticide) causes high mortality due to homing failure *at levels that could put a colony at risk of collapse*. *Simulated exposure events* on free-ranging foragers labeled with a radio-frequency identification tag *suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication.* These experiments offer new insights into the consequences of common neonicotinoid pesticides used worldwide.


I don't have a problem with a study that claims things like "could put colony at risk", "simulated exposure events", and "suggest thiamethoxam intoxication".
The study (at least the abstract you linked to) is only talking about posibilities...this is different from dr,. lu has done.

deknow


----------



## deknow

...and neither of those articles make any claims about imidacloprid in HFCS. I have already posted many problems with the LU study....if you want to understand the Lu study, you have to look at it carefully.

deknow


----------



## BigDawg

This article is a very nice summary of the neonics controversy and how corporate, political, and academic power structures are shaping the debate: "Be(e)coming experts: the controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder."

_"We began with the observation that commercial beekeepers’ knowledge claims are subordinated to those of academic and agro-industry toxicologists in the CCD controversy."_

_"*Honey bee scientists’ practices, however, are characterized by a causally driven, single-factorial epistemic form that emphasizes rapid, lethal effects of insecticides on honey bees, and a preference for false-negative (over false-positive) conclusions*. We traced the prevalence of this approach to the primacy of the agricultural research organizations such as the USDA and agroeconomic contexts within which early state entomologists and honey bee scientists practiced. *Academic toxicologists’ preference for this agro-entomological approach reflects their career stakes and interests in enhancing their cultural capital and achieving intellectual distinction.* *The EPA’s regulators have come to adopt dominant academic forms, perspectives, and norms, such as false-negative standards, in judging whether a pesticide poses environmental harm to honey bees. This reflects a historical shift in regulatory assessments of prospective harm from being broadly precautionary to nonprecautionary, which was precipitated by a highly fragmented and adversarial political context where chemical policymaking became a key ground for battles between pro-regulatory and deregulatory forces.*

*In sum, the primacy of toxicologists’ knowledge in the CCD controversy is not evidence of its inherent superiority. Rather, the dominance of toxicologists’ epistemic form reflects a particular history. In turn, the agrochemical industry has been able to draw on the epistemic form now institutionalized in regulatory policy and largely taken for granted in order to advance their interests and perspectives over and above those of commercial beekeepers in the CCD controversy. In this context, commercial beekeepers’ variety of expertise is characterized as merely ‘anecdotal’. **The EPA, Bayer, and many academic scientists make it clear that beekeepers cannot make credible knowledge on their own and thus need to work with certified institutional environmental toxicologists and honey bee researchers, who are the experts.* Doing so, however, means that the knowledge gets constructed in terms of the established agro-entomological form of expertise, and beekeepers’ influence is limited. At the same time, at a practical level, the governing standards and high expenditure required to comply with the EPA’s GLP means that investigations undertaken by beekeepers will tend to fail to meet those standards (Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2011).
_
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...xMDMyOTMwMzYyMjYwMDgBRGNHZmtPZlJmMklKATQBAXYy


----------



## deknow

Do you want to look at the specific study that you are claiming people are dismissing unfairly, or do you want to trot out text faster than you can read it?

deknow


----------



## BigDawg

Then, there is this article: "Field Research on Bees Raises Concern About Low-Dose Pesticides." 

"Foraging problems are exactly what Axel
Decourtye of the Association for Techni-
cal Coordination in Agriculture in Avignon,
France, and his colleagues found in a fi eld
study of honey bees. Decourtye’s team glued
tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653
honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a
sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
to the hive, depending on how far away the
bees were released and how unfamiliar the
terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated
bees. *“We were quite surprised by the magni-
tude of the effect,” *co-author Mickaël Henry
of the French National Institute for Agricul-
tural Research in Avignon says."

"Jeffrey Pettis of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, doubts
that the mortality rates would cause colony
collapse disorder or other loss of hives, but
says that *he is a co-author of a study nearing
publication that will strengthen the case that
neonicotinoids can harm hives.* Other unpub-
lished work shows an impact on native, soli-
tary bees, he says."

http://www.whaleofatime.org/forms/Editorial_science-bees.pdf


----------



## BigDawg

"Research by Jeffrey Pettis of the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory tested bees given doses of imidacloprid – one of these neo-nicotinoid chemicals, which is produced by Bayer CropScience.

His findings are published in the German science journal Naturwissenschaften (CORR).

*The study shows that in a laboratory setting infections by the nosema parasite – which gives bees dysentery – increased significantly when they were fed pollen spiked with the imidacloprid and then fed a sugar solution containing the bug, compared to those who did not have the chemical. *

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...de-blame-catastrophic-decline-honey-bees.html


----------



## deknow

Since all neonic labels will tell you that they will kill bees (all you ave to do is read them), I'm not sure how exciting a claim that "neonicotinoids can harm bees" is.

deknow


----------



## BigDawg

"Pettis’s study focused on imidacloprid, which like clothianidin is a neonicotinoid pesticide marketed by Bayer as a seed treatment. The findings are pretty ****ing for these nicotine-derived pesticides, according to McCarthy. He summarizes the study like this:

*The American study has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it."*

http://grist.org/article/2011-01-21-top-usda-bee-researcher-also-found-bayer-pesticide-harmful/


----------



## deknow

I'm familliar with this study. The bees exposed to nosema were in cages. Bees that died in the cages were not tested for nosema....and one of the controls had a lot of dead bees in the cage. If they died with a nosema infection or co-infection, it would change the results of the study. The bees that died (even from the control cage that had a very high death rate), were discarded and not tested.

deknow




BigDawg said:


> "Research by Jeffrey Pettis of the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory tested bees given doses of imidacloprid – one of these neo-nicotinoid chemicals, which is produced by Bayer CropScience.
> 
> His findings are published in the German science journal Naturwissenschaften (CORR).
> 
> *The study shows that in a laboratory setting infections by the nosema parasite – which gives bees dysentery – increased significantly when they were fed pollen spiked with the imidacloprid and then fed a sugar solution containing the bug, compared to those who did not have the chemical. *
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...de-blame-catastrophic-decline-honey-bees.html


----------



## BigDawg

There is a HUGE difference between incidental mortality of non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure.



deknow said:


> Since all neonic labels will tell you that they will kill bees (all you ave to do is read them), I'm not sure how exciting a claim that "neonicotinoids can harm bees" is.
> 
> deknow


----------



## deknow

BigDawg said:


> There is a HUGE difference between incidental mortality of non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure.


Sure there is...but the quote from Jeff that you cite says nothing about "non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure....what you quote him saying is:


> he is a co-author of a study nearing
> publication that will strengthen the case that
> neonicotinoids can harm hives.


----------



## deknow

But any bees dying from nosema in this study were not counted. It's like talking about heart attacks, and dismissing anyone with a heart attack that died from it.

You've asked if anyone has read these things...obviously some of us have, and some of us understand what was actually done vs what is claimed.

deknow



BigDawg said:


> "Pettis’s study focused on imidacloprid, which like clothianidin is a neonicotinoid pesticide marketed by Bayer as a seed treatment. The findings are pretty ****ing for these nicotine-derived pesticides, according to McCarthy. He summarizes the study like this:
> 
> *The American study has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it."*
> 
> http://grist.org/article/2011-01-21-top-usda-bee-researcher-also-found-bayer-pesticide-harmful/


----------



## BigDawg

deKnow,

Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok.

Does that about sum it up?


----------



## deknow

How about reading the studies? How many of the actual studies (as opposed to media reports on the studies) have you actually read? Looked up the references?

You want a simple summary, anyone with an agenda will be happy to offer you one.

I'm happy to discuss the issues with the harvard study in detail here...but if you want to do so, I suggest you read the study, read Randy's critique, and read the powerpoint I posted earlier.

If you want to discuss another study, name it and we can look at it. If you want to trot out soundbite after soundbite to studies you haven't read and don't understand, I'm not terribly interested.

If you want me to make a statement about a buch of studies, some I've read, some I haven't, and only a few that you've named (I guess I'm supposed to have read every study?), tough....I can't talk to you about a study I haven't looked at....or all studies in general. Apparantly, in such matters, you have more skill than I.

deknow



BigDawg said:


> deKnow,
> 
> Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok.
> 
> Does that about sum it up?


----------



## BigDawg

Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Then, there is this article: Decourtye’s team glued tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653 honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
> to the hive, depending on how far away the bees were released and how unfamiliar the terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated bees. *“We were quite surprised by the magni-
> tude of the effect,” *co-author Mickaël Henry of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Avignon says."


Bayer responded to that study back in the Spring of 2012: "The French honeybee study, though clever in the way it used microchips to follow the bees, is seriously flawed because the dose of pesticides given to the bees was "really way too high," says David Fischer, an ecotoxicologist at the company's U.S. headquarters in North Carolina. He says the bees were exposed to many times more pesticide than they would encounter in the real world."



BigDawg said:


> Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok. Does that about sum it up?


There's been a repeating pattern where most research studies done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll refuse to carry out real world field studies to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/


GMO corn and soybeans are sprayed with glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides which are non-toxic to bees at the dilutions and dosages used . Here's a video of the Roundup spraying (note all the birds singing in this corn monoculture setting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZqglw6EmFI 

Neonics are coated on the seed and bees are not exposed because bees don't drink hardly any guttation water, don't drink much soybean nectar and don't gather pollen from field corn. In cases of dry soil at planting time and windy weather, bees may be exposed to planter dust, but engineering solutions to prevent the problem will be implemented over the next few years.


----------



## gmcharlie

How about a quick reality check? argueing over dosages and testing is fun...and very interesting... but look at the maps, look where these chems are used and you should be able to point to no bees, or at least above average losses... and those guys in upstate NY and Main, and the fields in the dakotas with miles of Hat should be huge hives and no losses... and yet there is not the case.... lots of national forest that should be pretty free of these chems......and lots of areas like Mine we should not be able to keep a hive alive more than a week or two....... and yet Testing on a GRAND scale bears out the "we put them in a cage and dosed them" methods.....


----------



## gmcharlie

BigDawg said:


> Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/


Sorry big Dawg, your article ismisleading.... , they are talking mainly about herbacides.... MISLEADING..... and yes, roundup is loosing its battle.....BUT its a different tune......

And its posted by a group called Food and water watch?? hmmm would that be shills again??? Look at total sales of pesticides and applicator licenses, there down.....


----------



## WLC

So what if the Lu study was completely hypothetical? Spike the syrup, they won't overwinter well. Interesting. no?

Why is the European experience so different than ours? They have a history of bans, with more than enough success to justify the continent wide ban.

Let's not forget the objections of beekeepers like Steve Ellis. Is he delusional?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC,
Have you consideresd discussing this on Bee-L?


----------



## WLC

No thanks.

They're too partisan for my tastes.


----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> WLC,
> Have you consideresd discussing this on Bee-L?


Mark, have you considered that he isn't really discussing it here? A discussion involves actually looking at the objections and _discussing_ them. Wholesale dismissal of very valid and very well thought out critique is not discussion.

I posted a PDF of some of the powerpoint slides I've used when discussing this paper.

When I gave a presentation on reading studies critically (The People's Homework), I used this one as an example....it was great that several phd scientists of various specialties attended, and at least a few of them had read the paper in advance so they knew what I was talking about. This same venue (Follow The Honey, a honey store in Harvard Square) hosted Dr. Lu (talking about this study specifically), and one of the other study authors (talking about queens, I think). I gave a brief version at our conference one year as well. 

I've received no negative feedback on my written critiques or my presentations on the subject from anyone that has read or attended them other than from the study authors and from WLC. One of the study authors did write me about some of my comments....WLC seems free to dismiss them wholesale.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

As I've said before, Alex Lu won.

We've discussed the critique of the paper a while ago.

I'm not sure why you can't let go of this whole 'unsavory' affair.

Look at the bright side, when his new paper comes out, you can tear into that one all over again.

But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out. 

It made you guys look kinda unhinged.


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Mark, have you considered that he isn't really discussing it here?
> 
> deknow


Yes, I was attempting to make a suggestion that he try to "discuss" this topic on Bee-L, where Randy posts. I'd love to see how Peter Borst would react to WLC's criticism of Randy Oliver.


----------



## WLC

Randy and Dean are going to have to stop bugging the Italians over at 'The Bulletin of Insectology'. Otherwise, they might think they're 'Pazzo'.

I haven't emailed Peter in a while though.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out.
> 
> It made you guys look kinda unhinged.


errrr, didn't I quote Dr. Lu trashing another study...on totally bogus grounds? In a public presentation? In a recording that he gave permission to put online?

I'll also point out that if you look at the timeline, you will see (I think), that my comments here on the study predated anything on Bee-L.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?264966-Ccd&p=767435#post767435


> Hi all,
> 
> I was also at this talk (doing sound) and have a video recording. Please be a bit patient, as I want to follow up with the researcher in question....but I will say that there were some serious flaws in the study, and in the researchers understanding of the technology involved. I can't comment on the study itself (as I haven't read it), but the presentation was ....let me say for the moment...."inaccurate in many ways"....more to come.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I haven't emailed Peter in a while though.


When was the last time? Did u talk about Lu's study or Oliver's comments?


----------



## WLC

Madonna...

By the way, I had to clue Peter in to 'The Bulletin of Insectology'. He didn't know what it was.


----------



## WLC

The last time I emailed PLB, I was trying to warn Randy about Remebee. Dean remembers that. 

It didn't do any good, and my worst fears were confirmed.


----------



## BigDawg

deKnow,

Just out of curiosity, is there a single study or paper that points to the negative impacts of neonics on bee health that you don't find fault with?

Because there are dozens and dozens of research papers that DO point out potential negative impacts to bee health from neonics--are all of those researchers and all of the peer review panels just getting it wrong?

For the record, this is the EXACT sane type of game that was played when reports of health issues from tobacco, Dioxin, PCB's, etc first became public. Industry "scientists" and industry apologists slammed the data sets, the methods, anything and everything they could to discredit the research and maintain the flow of profits.

Do you find fault with these articles?

"Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/?tool=pubmed

"Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495159/

"Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honey bees."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20050872

"High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20333298

"Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=0FAD7584A3AEFF8FDE5B08913144106E.d01t03

"Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.3485/abstract

Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?


 They're not full field studies designed to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean and canola flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems. 

There have been some full field studies like this $950,000 one - conducted by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences - which found 'no link between seed treatments [canola] and bee deaths" http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/ 

"Scott-Dupree said she knows critics will say she’s in Bayer’s back pocket or focus on the study’s weaknesses when it is submitted for publication later this year, even though the EPA and PMRA verified the protocols and an independent quality assurance team supervised data collection and analysis."


----------



## WLC

BigDawg:

Don't forget some of the newer studies by Goulson.


----------



## BigDawg

1. The study was funded by Bayer. 'Nuff said.

2. The bees were only exposed to the canola fields for TWO WEEKS.

3. The canola field they were exposed to were only 25% in bloom.

4. The final insecticide residue analysis has not yet been released, and, given who paid for the study I wouldn't hold my breath....

So, while you dismiss laboratory studies because they make neonics look bad, you trot out this study as somehow being more "real world?" Seriously? How many bees do you know that only visit a flowering field for 2 weeks when it's only 25% in bloom? Where else on the planet are bees in an agricultural area where neonics are used only going to be exposed to neonic-coated seed plants for only 2 weeks? 



BlueDiamond said:


> They're not full field studies designed to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean and canola flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.
> 
> There have been some full field studies like this $950,000 one - conducted by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences - which found 'no link between seed treatments [canola] and bee deaths" http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/
> 
> "Scott-Dupree said she knows critics will say she’s in Bayer’s back pocket or focus on the study’s weaknesses when it is submitted for publication later this year, even though the EPA and PMRA verified the protocols and an independent quality assurance team supervised data collection and analysis."


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> BigDawg:
> Don't forget some of the newer studies by Goulson.


Goulson's studies are not full field studies either:

Dave Goulson study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215025

GOULSON STUDY SUMMARY: "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the lab to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to control colonies. Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world."

BAYER CROPSCIENCE RESPONSE: Dr. Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticised Goulson's study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the labaratory, before being placed outside in a natural field environment to feed. "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation," he said. "This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies." http://tinyurl.com/7n86thg


----------



## BigDawg

You say that field studies are important, and yet you referenced above to the Scott-Dupree study where the bees were only exposed to neonics in the field for TWO WEEKS to crops that were only 25% in bloom. Would you say that that low level of exposure is typical to what bees "in the field" would normally experience?



BlueDiamond said:


> Goulson's studies are not full field studies either:
> 
> Dave Goulson study:
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215025
> 
> GOULSON STUDY SUMMARY: "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the lab to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to control colonies. Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world."
> 
> BAYER CROPSCIENCE RESPONSE: Dr. Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticised Goulson's study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the labaratory, before being placed outside in a natural field environment to feed. "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation," he said. "This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies." http://tinyurl.com/7n86thg


----------



## WLC

I had this one in mind:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goulsonlab/documents/goulson-2013-jae.pdf

"An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides."

'For the most commonly used seed treatments, reported half-lives in soil typically range from 200 to in excess of 1000 days (range 28–1250 days for imidacloprid; 7–3001 days for thiamethoxam; 148–6931 days for clothianidin; Table 1).'

Yikes!

That suggests to me that neonics can build up to very high levels in certain soils over the years.

...which makes the concentrations used in the Harvard study more realistic, and it can also explain what Steve Ellis is dealing with.

...An environmental pollutant.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> You say that field studies are important, and yet you referenced above to the Scott-Dupree study where the bees were only exposed to neonics in the field for TWO WEEKS to crops that were only 25% in bloom. Would you say that that low level of exposure is typical to what bees "in the field" would normally experience?


Two weeks = 1/2 the lifespan of a worker bee
25% canola bloom is still a massive bloom: http://www.ablecrystals.com/images/canola1.jpg


----------



## WLC

BlueDiamond:

What Goulson is describing is an Environmental 'time bomb'.

By 2020, it will be too late.

I'm not being dramatic.

Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.....


----------



## sqkcrk

So, WLC, do you think we can stop looking for the cause of CCD? And then can we concentrate on the things killing the other 25% of last year's 30%?


----------



## WLC

CCD is nothing compared to this.

The other 25% 0f the 30%?

I think it's going to get alot bigger than just 30%.

However, it's not just Honeybees that we need to be concerned about.

If clothianidin is building up at the rate Goulson is suggesting, somebody is going to notice. Especially if they're near neonic crops on the wrong soil type.


----------



## sqkcrk

Compared to this? I thought that CCD was what this whole Thread was about. CCD Research saying that CCD is caused by neonic. No?

"The other 25% of the 30%?" Reports I have heard of attributed most of the "Winterloss/Die Back" is attributable to nonCCD related causes.


----------



## deknow

How about you pick one of those studies, read it, and tell me what it is exactly that it proves. Teotting out a bunch of titles doesnt really get us anywhere.

One thing that continues.to be.at issue is that everyone wants to talk about field realistic dose/exposure, but no onw wants to discuss what that should be. My reading on things is that generally the exposure seems to be.less than one would think.
The.weird data point, that ive brought up before but no one has picked up on, is the USDA survey of polllen collected from the.comb (not trapped) from 2012. Not a big or general enough survey to tell us much, but 9+% of colonies showed imidacloprid in the pollen samples.....at an average concentration of over 30ppb.

Before we can even discuss what the impacts are, we have to get some handle on the actual exposure so we know what we are measuring. The USDA data is an important place to look. 

Deknow



BigDawg said:


> deKnow,
> 
> Just out of curiosity, is there a single study or paper that points to the negative impacts of neonics on bee health that you don't find fault with?
> 
> Because there are dozens and dozens of research papers that DO point out potential negative impacts to bee health from neonics--are all of those researchers and all of the peer review panels just getting it wrong?
> 
> For the record, this is the EXACT sane type of game that was played when reports of health issues from tobacco, Dioxin, PCB's, etc first became public. Industry "scientists" and industry apologists slammed the data sets, the methods, anything and everything they could to discredit the research and maintain the flow of profits.
> 
> Do you find fault with these articles?
> 
> "Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields"
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/?tool=pubmed
> 
> "Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees"
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495159/
> 
> "Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honey bees."
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20050872
> 
> "High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health."
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20333298
> 
> "Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication."
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=0FAD7584A3AEFF8FDE5B08913144106E.d01t03
> 
> "Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review"
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.3485/abstract
> 
> Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?


----------



## WLC

I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)

His study really was about the other 25%.

How long will it take for most soils to accumulate enough contamination before we see greater overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores?

1 year? 5 years? 

I haven't seen a comprehensive study on neonic levels in the various soil types in the U.S. .

It probably doesn't exist.


----------



## deknow

We dont have canola here, but I dont think it blooms for more than 21 days, and not always more than 2 weeks.



BigDawg said:


> 1. The study was funded by Bayer. 'Nuff said.
> 
> 2. The bees were only exposed to the canola fields for TWO WEEKS.
> 
> 3. The canola field they were exposed to were only 25% in bloom.
> 
> 4. The final insecticide residue analysis has not yet been released, and, given who paid for the study I wouldn't hold my breath....
> 
> So, while you dismiss laboratory studies because they make neonics look bad, you trot out this study as somehow being more "real world?" Seriously? How many bees do you know that only visit a flowering field for 2 weeks when it's only 25% in bloom? Where else on the planet are bees in an agricultural area where neonics are used only going to be exposed to neonic-coated seed plants for only 2 weeks?


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> I had this one in mind: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goulsonlab/documents/goulson-2013-jae.pdf "An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides."
> 'For the most commonly used seed treatments, reported half-lives in soil typically range from 200 to in excess of 1000 days (range 28–1250 days for imidacloprid; 7–3001 days for thiamethoxam; 148–6931 days for clothianidin; Table 1).' Yikes! That suggests to me that neonics can build up to very high levels in certain soils over the years. ...which makes the concentrations used in the Harvard study more realistic, and it can also explain what Steve Ellis is dealing with....An environmental pollutant.


Dr. David Fischer from Bayer has already addressed the soil buildup issue: http://tinyurl.com/ljmpvqx

Excerpt: "Some residues can remain in the soil beyond harvest and may be present when a succeeding crop is planted. But here's the key thing to keep in mind. Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles. The bottom line is the residues in plants won't be appreciably greater after 7 or even 70 years of continuous use than they were the first year."


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.


Sure they did...but they didn't explore that possibility in their study, and at least 2 of the 3 authors deny this is what happened.
It would also have been nice to know how contaminated the stores were....something one would look at if they were considering the possibility that contaminated stores was the cause of hive collapse.



> The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)


....and the last time I heard Dr. Lu speak on the subject, he stated explicitly that (paraphrase)'scientists are now changing their definition of CCD based on our study'

I asked him which scientists when and where.....he didn't know. That's when he dropped the gem that as far as defining CCD, wikipedia was "the gold standard".....but given that the hives were found without queens, the wikipedia definition (at least at the time) specifically excludes the symtpoms they induced from being considered CCD.

deknow

deknow


----------



## WLC

You're missing the whole picture.

Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted.

The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.

The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .
They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .

Perhaps if they performed some column migration studies for different soil types, they could understand this effect more clearly.

Which soil types bind the neonics tightly, and which ones release it easily upon 'irrigation'.

Also, since farmers do use many kinds of soil conditioners, they might release any neonics that are tightly bound to clays or other minerals.


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC said:


> I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
> The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)


how does he know that the collapse were not from mites?
Dave


----------



## WLC

If you read the article from the first post of the thread, they treated and didn't see any mites.

Ditto for the overwintered colony losses. It didn't kill them right away.


----------



## WLC

"Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles."

So, according to Goulson, 90% of the neonics from the seed coat end up in the soil, and not in the plant.

That's alot of residue left 'tightly bound' in the soil, don't you think?


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> You're missing the whole picture. Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted. The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .


With what health and abundance consequences for pollinators? Dave Goulson hasn't documented that honeybees are actually having widespread and unexplained health problems in the regions (like Steve Ellis's region of west-central Minnesota) where - for the past 5+ consecutive years - the landscape has been covered with crop monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. Or documented that pollinators such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, etc. are no longer abundant on the margins of the neonic treated fields. They ARE abundant, as I show in this long 16 minute video I shot last August in the heart of the corn and soy neonic monocultures of south-central Minnesota (just 70 miles southeast from Barrett, Minnesota where Steve Ellis lives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE


----------



## WLC

OK BD.

But, is anyone measuring the soil levels of neonic residues?

So, where is the 30% winter mortality number coming from?

Is that 'bogus'?


----------



## sqkcrk

Where does the number come from or what is causing that number ofhive mortality to occur? What r u asking? The number was reported by the Apiary Inspector of America.


----------



## WLC

Well, it sounds like he's saying that non of those 30% losses could have been due to neonics.

Am I wrong?


----------



## sqkcrk

He? Which he?


----------



## gmcharlie

deknow said:


> The.weird data point, that ive brought up before but no one has picked up on, is the USDA survey of polllen collected from the.comb (not trapped) from 2012. Not a big or general enough survey to tell us much, but 9+% of colonies showed imidacloprid in the pollen samples.....at an average concentration of over 30ppb.
> 
> 
> Deknow


Very intersting, Are you saying that the 30ppb is a high number or a low number? I am not up on what or how exposure numbers rank. I would also be curious as to where the sample was from?? Might be valuable to caompare numbers from differnt areas and compare that to mortality numbers.


----------



## BigDawg

An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop. A three year, $6 million study showed GMO crops to be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalents. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3196768.stm


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop.


GMO corn or non-GMO, the corn plants nowadays are so tightly spaced that pollinators can't gain access to weeds that might be growing under the corn crop canopy from July onwards: https://imageshack.com/a/img21/7131/7e45.jpg
And GMO or non-GMO, the field margins / ditches / roadsides still have flowering plants in most cases (e.g. alfalfa, red clover, thistles, sunflowers, milkweeds) and those plants set plenty of seed because there are plenty of pollinators in those field margins.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Part of the registration package of studies required for any pesticide by the US, Canada, Europe, or any other place in the world is called environmental fate. Those E Fate studies involve dosing various soil samples with the test substance, incubating under real life conditions and showing what the pesticides fate is. Fate means how long it takes to degrade (half life), what the various degradation products are and how long they take to degrade if such studies are appropriate. These degradation tests have to be done with various soil types. Typically registration studies are not published as they are private information between the pesticide registrant and the government. If the registrant wishes to publish he is free to do so. On the other hand he has spent many millions of dollars and many years generating this data and may not wish to share it with his competitors for rather obvious reasons.

The same situation exists with crop residues. For any crop the registrant wishes to have on his label he must provide the various government agencies with residue data. This data is generated by treating test plots of crops grown under real agricultural conditions, harvested by normal agricultural methods, sometimes even shipped to markets for that product under normal handling and then sampled. Typically the lab work involves determining both the level of residue of the pesticide as well as the levels of any metabolites that are of biological interest. Obviously metabolites such as water are not of biological interest. Again registrants spend many millions of dollars generating this type of date for each labeled crop and are not generally willing to share such data publicly, but are required by law to supply this data to the various regulatory agencies.

There are also migratory studies to show how the pesticide moves in the soil or water, how metabolites of interest move in soil, impact on non target species such as bees, bio-accumulation studies, etc that are all part of the registration package. Also degradation studies that show how the product bio-degrade pathway in treated plants (if taken up by the plant), how it biodegrades in various animal species, etc. As well as more tests triggered by any bio-degradation product that may be toxic.

In addition there are many, many studies of the pesticide and metabolites of interest in various animal species. These studies must show things like no effect levels, lack of mutagenicity, lack of cancers, lack of induced allergic reactions, lack of negative impact on reproduction, and on and on.

All of this type of data for pesticides must be generated using good laboratory practices (GLP). GLP is mainly about documentation of exactly what you did, including calibration data for all balances and instruments used, how the sample was handled, lot numbers of all reagents used, etc. The fines and jail terms for falsifying data are very real and very scary to any rational person doing such studies. After a company has spent maybe $50 million or so putting a registration package together he does not wish to risk the regulatory agency throwing out his registration package because one study has been falsified. The agencies do both announced and unannouced inspections of the whole data generation process as they wish. They often simply show up at your door and tell you today is inspection day. When they show up you welcome them and show them anything they wish to look at. They are very, very good at finding the smallest error. If you do not have a written procedure for how you will round off numbers and follow that procedure every single time you are in trouble.

The studies required and what GLP is all about are all a matter of pubic record and can be found for the US in the code of federal regulations. So, anyone who wishes to better understand this process should feel free to go to a good library and start reading.

Such studies are not one time and we are done items. Often new studies are triggered by learning something under actual use that suggests new studies are required, Periodically the agencies add new rules or change the old rules so studies must be repeated. Also as technology advances new types of studies are added as requirements to maintain registrations. And, it looks like reregistration of all pesticides may well be required about once every 25 years or so based on the last 50 years history. Such reregistration studies mean throw out all the old data and start over with brand new studies. I would guess today it costs someplace around $100 million in such studies to bring a brand new product to market. And, I would guess it probably costs another $10 million per year for studies to support a product until reregistration is next triggered. The paper for a registration study would fill a fairly large delivery van. My costs may be low as they are now dated badly. It has been 17 years since I was current.

So, no one on this group may know a thing about how long any particular pesticide lasts in the environment and may never know. That does not mean the people that have a need to know do not have excellent data. In fact if the product is registered the people that need to know do have excellent data. Published data from any academic institution will never be generated under GLP so the regulatory agencies rightfully do not have the slightest interest in such data. Any accusation that the data does not exist is simply ignorance of the registration process and ignorance of the law. Further, the data is none of your business. You have the right to feel the agencies try hard to protect consumer safety but not the right to see any data. Therein lies the rub as none of us has much faith in government in general. That includes me to a fair extent. But, having worked with the FDA and EPA I do have confidence that both know what they are doing and do it well but miserably slowly.

The US EPA would roll on the floor laughing if anyone submitted the Harvard neonic-bee study. They would rate it as meaningless.


----------



## jim lyon

gmcharlie said:


> Very intersting, Are you saying that the 30ppb is a high number or a low number? I am not up on what or how exposure numbers rank. I would also be curious as to where the sample was from?? Might be valuable to caompare numbers from differnt areas and compare that to mortality numbers.


A 2011/2012 USDA/APHIS survey taken from about 170 different beekeepers (including a sampling of our own hives) showed 7.5% of hives tested positive for Imidacloprid at an average detection of 24ppb. 2.5% were positive for Thiamethoxam at an average of 11.9 ppb. I don't have totals for Clothianidin only results showing our hives were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin. BTW 39% were positive for Coumaphos at 59 ppb avg., 46% positive for Fluvalinate at 37 ppb and 24% positive for DMPF (Amitraz) at a 78 ppb avg.


----------



## deknow

Thanks Jim, Ill try to post a link to the data when im at the computer and not the phone.

It is this kind of data that makes you wonder why these "average" bees survive at all.

Deknow


----------



## WLC

50-700ppb imidacloprid is the reported LD50 range from various studies.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> 50-700ppb imidacloprid is the reported LD50 range from various studies.


ppb in syrup in cage studies where there is no.comb or brood?

What should we expect to see from 30ppb (or higher) in beebread being used directly to produce food for.the next generation?

Deknow


----------



## deknow

....and how are such levels being achieved? Planting dust? Off label (high concentration, pestigation, applying to flowes bees are visiting)? Is it being concemtrated in the production of bee bread?

Deknow


----------



## WLC

Dean:

30ppb imidacloprid would be considered sublethal. So, you'd expect to see sublethal effects.

We've been through this whole discussion before, with references. Remember?

How does this relate to the concentrations in the Harvard study?

It's hard to say with all of the issues with their methodology.

I'm just pointing out that the observed LD50 of a pesticide can be quite subjective depending on unknown factors.

We don't know why it varies so much from study to study.


----------



## deknow

> 30ppb imidacloprid would be considered sublethal. So, you'd expect to see sublethal effects.


Am I mistaken, or are you referencing caged bee studies on adult bees and assuming the effect is similar/the same for nurse bees consuming beebread and feeding larvae?
Such an assumption is worthless



> How does this relate to the concentrations in the Harvard study?


The harvard study,.as well as many of the.others brought up here all make claims as to what is a field realistic.dose. If we cant come to some understanding as to what bees are actually being exposed to, then we can all walk around with a different idea of what field realistic means.

The USDA pollen data is shocking....not only for how much imidacloprid was found, but how much beekeeper applied trestmentreatments were found. All of this in stored pollen that is to build new bees.

deknow


----------



## gmcharlie

Jim/ Deknow... curious, what types of crops are your bees on? is canola one of them?? wondering if certian plants are much worse for that than others. such as here corn is the main one, and we don't get a ton of corn pollen, but some.....

Any info on how the hives with higher levels fared for overwinter/ honey production???

And last question, is there any info on hives from other areas where these Chems would be lower/nonexistant??


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> [\quote]


The correct character to use in BBCode closure is the forward slash "/", rather than the back slash "\".  :lookout:


----------



## jim lyon

I am waiting for someone to do a study comparing real life sub lethal dosages of neonics both with and without different concentrations of miticides commonly used by beekeepers. Have I missed it? Wouldnt that be far more relevant given the data in the USDA/APHIS report? How can any good scientist wanting to know the answer to CCD/hive collapse look at these numbers and not want to, first and foremost, do a study of the very chemicals found in the greatest concentrations in field tested hives? Shouldnt that be the very first thing that should be studied? Look at the Lu study, for example, and look at the backgrounds of the research team, then tell me why they decided to study Imadacloprid and nothing else.


----------



## deknow

Here is the USDA report, so you can read it for yourself.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_hea...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf

This data seems to fly in the face of what we are told the bees are exposed to...if this is what is being found in the stored pollen, are we really surprised if the bees are having issues? Do we really need to subscribe to some theory that says that undetectable levels of this or that can slightly affect bees if they are in a cage when we have such hard data on what (at least some of the migratory bees) are actually storing with their pollen?

WLC, it also seems rather odd that you are willing to simply apply data from syrup fed caged bees and apply it to beebread eating nurse bees that are raising the next generation....especially since you seem to think that the concept that imidacloprid is toxic to bees when it is found in winter stores can be toxic somehow novel and a breakthrough. The former is a stretch by any standard, and the latter is so obvious that it need not even be tested....yet you spout the former and laud the latter as worthwhile.

deknow


----------



## deknow

jim lyon said:


> I am waiting for someone to do a study comparing real life sub lethal dosages of neonics both with and without different concentrations of miticides commonly used by beekeepers. Have I missed it? Wouldnt that be far more relevant given the data in the USDA/APHIS report? How can any good scientist wanting to know the answer to CCD/hive collapse look at these numbers and not want to, first and foremost, do a study of the very chemicals found in the greatest concentrations in field tested hives? Shouldnt that be the very first thing that should be studied? Look at the Lu study, for example, and look at the backgrounds of the research team, then tell me why they decided to study Imadacloprid and nothing else.


...they did (in the Harvard Study) treat the hives with apistan and fumidil....experimental and controls. They reported no mite counts, and refused to answer my questions on the subject. Ken (the beekeeper involved in the study), is an excellent beekeeper....he is our inspector, and although I like to be around for inspections, I have no problem with him opening our hives when we are not around. He generally has excellent winter survival, but didn't run these study hives exactly like he runs his own.

Also note that many beekeepers were (when the survey was taken) using Amitraz illegally (I think about 1/3 of the samples had Amitraz metabolites).

I've posted this data here on beesource before (on threads with anti-neonic types), and I've posted this data on Bee-L.

Everyone wants to blame Bayer, Monsanto, Farmers, etc...it's easier than looking at what beekeepers are actually doing.

deknow


----------



## jim lyon

No canola in our area. Primary honey forage is clover and alfalfa with a few sunflowers sprinkled in. Lots and lots of corn and beans. 

No one asked for a follow up on the condition of our bees after testing was done in the fall of 2012. I am not aware of any data showing where concentrations were either high or low. I dont even know how broad a geographic area the testing covers. 

Any researcher out there wanting to inspect our hives and test them for anything need only contact me. Information is never a bad thing.


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Studies have shown that the pesticide level of the pollen at the source are often much higher than the pesticide levels found in the pollen once it is in the hive. The same can be said about pesticide levels in dosed feeders and the nectar in hives. The stuff seems to disappear.

In short, it's very difficult to predict the resulting pesticide level in the hive once a contaminated food stuff enters the hive.

No one is sure why.

However, you forgot about the control colonies. The study reported that all but one survived, and that one perished from a different cause. they all had the same 'background' levels.

Hopefully, we'll find that once the follow up study has been published, it will make the effect that I speak of more apparent.

Namely, dosed colonies failing to overwinter.


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> In short, it's very difficult to predict the resulting pesticide level in the hive once a contaminated food stuff enters the hive.


So what? I agree it is hard to (on paper) in a specific circumstance, to look at a pesticide application and predict what will end up in the hive.
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to measure what ends up in the hive...which is what the USDA survey did (on a very limited scale).
It is how high some of those levels seem (not how low they seem) that raises my eyebrows. Unless imidacloprid is quickly metabolized by nurse bees in the production of brood food (by eating the fermented pollen), 30ppb in beebread (the average of almost 10% of the samples) would make me very, very concerned (and does). The individual measurements that made up the average were 3.5ppb to 216ppb!

The 24D, fluvalinate, and coumaphos frequencies/levels are also probably of great concern and higher than we are told is a field realistic exposure (I haven't looked at them closely).

The Amitraz metabolites could never be found by analyzing pesticide use (unless the beekeepers reported their own illegal pesticide use).

...all of this is a really good reason to, if one wants to know what bees are exposed to, measure what the bees are being exposed to, not calculate it, and not complain that it is difficult to predict.




> However, you forgot about the control colonies. The study reported that all but one survived, and that one perished from a different cause. they all had the same 'background' levels.
> Hopefully, we'll find that once the follow up study has been published, it will make the effect that I speak of more apparent.
> Namely, dosed colonies failing to overwinter.


Why is it surprising that bees that have stored imidacloprid laced syrup, then completed their honey cap with clean HFCS failed to overwinter?
Isn't it more surprising that colonies that had 15 frames of stores needed to be fed sugar/HFCS patties? That bees that were fed all summer, were full of bees and brood by May never swarmed, never needed supering, never had frames spun out...and had to be fed to prepare them for winter?
None of what is reported makes any sense....except that the surviving dosed hive had moved into a feeder with (presumably) uncontaminated stores.

deknow


----------



## BlueDiamond

deknow said:


> It is how high some of those levels seem (not how low they seem) that raises my eyebrows. Unless imidacloprid is quickly metabolized by nurse bees in the production of brood food (by eating the fermented pollen), 30ppb in beebread (the average of almost 10% of the samples) would make me very, very concerned (and does). The individual measurements that made up the average were 3.5ppb to 216ppb!


And yet Jim Lyon's hives "were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin" even though his hives (Herrick, South Dakota area) are surrounded by 1000's of square miles worth of monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. And on top of that Jim says: "winter losses in recent years have been minimal"..."Currently our bees have never looked better"


----------



## Daniel Y

50-700 ppb in syrup results in what when it is condensed down to honey? Are there any measurements of what is in pollen found in the hives? 

I do suppose that the range woudl be one explanation of why bees near crops in some areas could be effected while bees in other areas are not even though they are also near crops. 

If the average for Imidacloprid is 24ppb. How many hives actually measured at exactly 24 ppb?

Given that the rate of losses to hives runs 30% or greater. Does this measurement also indicate that number of losses would be expected? IN other words if the average is 24 ppb could we expect then that 30% of all hives on a regular basis would be exposed to lethal levels?


----------



## jim lyon

Daniel Y said:


> 50-700 ppb in syrup results in what when it is condensed down to honey? Are there any measurements of what is in pollen found in the hives?
> 
> I do suppose that the range woudl be one explanation of why bees near crops in some areas could be effected while bees in other areas are not even though they are also near crops.
> 
> If the average for Imidacloprid is 24ppb. How many hives actually measured at exactly 24 ppb?
> 
> Given that the rate of losses to hives runs 30% or greater. Does this measurement also indicate that number of losses would be expected? IN other words if the average is 24 ppb could we expect then that 30% of all hives on a regular basis would be exposed to lethal levels?


7.5% of the hives showed residues above the 1ppb lod in pollen taken from the comb. Of those 7.5% the average was 24ppb and the range was 2.8 to 216. That is as much detail as the report gives.


----------



## WLC

What I'm trying to communicate is: if the pollen imidacloprid concentrations in the hive were 30ppb, then the concentrations at the source were much higher.

I'm painting a portrait of an environmentl pollutant.


----------



## BigDawg

9 out of 10 regular smokers will NOT get lung cancer--yet this in no way means that smoking does not cause lung cancer. 

I'm truly glad that Jim's bees to date are happy and healthy. 

Really the issue isn't whether neonics are causing harm to bees or not--there's pretty clear data that shows they are--the issue is why some beeks are affected and others are not. Maybe the solution is as simple as reducing the level of pesticide in the seed coatings. As the Purdue study points out, one kernel of neonic-coated seed corn has enough poison on it to kill 100,000 bees. 

"Assessment of the Environmental Exposure of Honeybees to Particulate Matter Containing Neonicotinoid Insecticides Coming from Corn Coated Seeds"
http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/pollinators/pdf-pesticides/2012Tapparoseedtreatedcorn.pdf

You'd think that Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta would be conducting some LONG TERM studies into the impacts on honeybees to neonics exposure, or maybe they are and just aren't sharing the data. The Bayer-funded study linked to above was a joke--only exposing the bees to neonics for TWO WEEKS and then declaring that neonics don't harm bees.....

There's no doubt in my mind that neonics are NOT the single cause of CCD. They is however mounting evidence that neonics are playing a role in CCD--how big a factor is yet to be determined.



BlueDiamond said:


> And yet Jim Lyon's hives "were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin" even though his hives (Herrick, South Dakota area) are surrounded by 1000's of square miles worth of monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. And on top of that Jim says: "winter losses in recent years have been minimal"..."Currently our bees have never looked better"


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Really the issue isn't whether neonics are causing harm to bees or not--there's pretty clear data that shows they are--the issue is why some beeks are affected and others are not. Maybe the solution is as simple as reducing the level of pesticide in the seed coatings.


It's already been explained to you that rates of CCD and winter loss do not correlate well with heavy neonic seed coating areas vs light or non-neonic seed coating areas. And it's already been explained that Jim Lyon's hives "were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin" even though his hives (east-central South Dakota area) are surrounded by 1000's of square miles worth of monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. Therefore even if neonic seed coatings were banned altogether there's no field evidence available that would suggest CCD and winter loss rates would improve. 



BigDawg said:


> You'd think that Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta would be conducting some LONG TERM studies into the impacts on honeybees to neonics exposure,


 There's no significant exposure to neonics from seed treatments begin with as explained above (save for some planter dust exposure incidents which will be resolved within a year or two).


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> There is no data to back up that claim


...I haven't looked at the references provided:
Schmuck et al. 2001 (Pest Manag Sci 57:225-238) and Maus et al. 2003 (Bulletin of 
Insectology 56:51-58)

There is no data in those papers wrt:
"Some residues can remain in the soil beyond harvest and may be present when a succeeding crop is planted. But here's the key thing to keep in mind. Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles. The bottom line is the residues in plants won't be appreciably greater after 7 or even 70 years of continuous use than they were the first year."

I haven't looked, but if you are claiming that there is no data, I assume you have read (or at least looked over) the studies? ...otherwise, how would you know?

deknow


----------



## mac

deknow said:


> ...I haven't looked at the references provided:
> Schmuck et al. 2001 (Pest Manag Sci 57:225-238) and Maus et al. 2003 (Bulletin of
> Insectology 56:51-58)
> 
> There is no data in those papers wrt:
> "Some residues can remain in the soil beyond harvest and may be present when a succeeding crop is planted. But here's the key thing to keep in mind. Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles. The bottom line is the residues in plants won't be appreciably greater after 7 or even 70 years of continuous use than they were the first year."
> 
> I haven't looked, but if you are claiming that there is no data, I assume you have read (or at least looked over) the studies? ...otherwise, how would you know?
> 
> deknow


 The toxicity of neonicotinoids may, however, increase by synergistic effects with other compounds as was demonstrated by Iwasa et al. (2004)for mixtures containing a cyano-group neonicotinoid. Therefore, screening for safer compounds should also include gathering more information on potential synergistic effects of mixtures containing neonicotinoids as this is currently lacking.


----------



## jim lyon

mac said:


> corn rows are planted on like 36 inch centers I think bees can fly down a 36 inch row without much trouble but I have no field studies to back up that claim


30" rows have been the norm for some time and yes corn canopy has been a big factor in weed control for as long as farmers have grown corn. You need to get out into corn country and have a little fun, look whats right over in Milton 
http://www.themaize.com/map/usa/florida


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> The toxicity of neonicotinoids may, however, increase by synergistic effects with other compounds as was demonstrated by Iwasa et al. (2004)for mixtures containing a cyano-group neonicotinoid. Therefore, screening for safer compounds should also include gathering more information on potential synergistic effects of mixtures containing neonicotinoids as this is currently lacking.


Yes, this is an excertpt from the conclusions form this paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/

...and if you look at another paragraph in the conclusion, you see:


> Many lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees have been described in laboratory studies, however, no effects were observed in field studies with field-realistic dosages.


...note that the above is a paragraph in its entirety....not taken out of context.

The passage (from the same paper) that you quote (above), is from a paragraph that begins with:


> The risk assessment scheme for soil-applied systemic pesticides proposed by Alix et al.2010) seems adequate for assessing the risks of side-effects by neonicotinoids as it takes into account the effect on different stages (adult versus larvae) and on different levels of biological organization (organism versus colony)


It certainly is conceivable that the statements you object to are garbage, and/or based on garbage data....I haven't given them a good look. Do you still claim that there is no data?

deknow


----------



## mac

jim lyon said:


> 30" rows have been the norm for some time and yes corn canopy has been a big factor in weed control for as long as farmers have grown corn.


 well than no need for round up


jim lyon said:


> You need to get out into corn country and have a little fun, look whats right over in Milton
> http://www.themaize.com/map/usa/florida


 My relatives grow corn as do my neighbors no need to drive to milton but thanks for the heads up. Lots of agg here ya might even get some water melons from this area they are shipped nation wide


----------



## mac

deknow said:


> Yes, this is an excertpt from the conclusions form this paper:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/
> 
> ...and if you look at another paragraph in the conclusion, you see:
> 
> ...note that the above is a paragraph in its entirety....not taken out of context.
> 
> The passage (from the same paper) that you quote (above), is from a paragraph that begins with:
> 
> 
> It certainly is conceivable that the statements you object to are garbage, and/or based on garbage data....I haven't given them a good look. Do you still claim that there is no data?
> 
> deknow


 Therefore, screening for safer compounds should also include gathering more information on potential synergistic effects of mixtures containing neonicotinoids as this is currently LACKING


----------



## mac

I wonder why lab testing data is no longer Relevant


----------



## deknow

of course data is relevent....

...but what you claimed (and what I called you on) was that there was no data to support the claims made about the bioavailability of imidacloprid in soil buildup. I'm asking you if you reviewed the sources given in order to make that determination, or is your claim just a fantasy based upon reading the title?

deknow


----------



## deknow

mac said:


> Therefore, screening for safer compounds should also include gathering more information on potential synergistic effects of mixtures containing neonicotinoids as this is currently LACKING


...you do understand that this quote is talking about a concern in going forward in developing new pesticides ("safer compunds"...safer than what is currently available...safer than imidacloprid, not imidacloprid).
I absolutely think we need more studies on the synergisic effects of our currently used pesticides....I think we can agree on that. The quote you are providing, however, speaks nothing of this.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Neonic contaminated talc dust has been shown to kill bees outright.

Pollen from wildflowers on the margins of neonic fields have been shown to have unusually high levels of neonics.

The 1/2 life of neonics in soil is far longer than that stated on 'the label'.

I'll agree that we need to examine the effects of entire formulations, and synergistic interactions between formulations, for their effects on Honeybee colonies.

The environmental pollution from neonics via translocation is as serious as the 'bee kill' issue.


----------



## deknow

Another issue that comes up is buildup in tree injections. When the USDA came in because of the Asian longhorn beetle with a plan to inject hundreds of thousands of trees with imidacloprid once a year for 3 years they made some curious claims:

1. That the dose would be effective in the tree tissue for at least a year.
2. That they would dose each tree 3 years in a row.
3. All of this was backed up by data on sunflowers and corn...which aren't trees.

I asked how they could think it would be effective for a year, and not be concerned about the levels of imidacloprid in the tree (completely unknown) after 3 treatments wrt to pollinators, soil, etc. I pushed really hard to get them to collect data.
They hired Jeff Pettis to do a study...he did a study on how much imidacloprid made it into the hives in the spring when (some) red maples in the area were injected according to the protocol. Unfortunately, it seems that flowers and leaves from the trees were tested for levels of imidacloprid, but not the bark layer that is responsible for killing the ALB....the one data point that would have been helpful in determining what a reasonable protocol would be was not collected. The one data point that could have reassured all involved that a lesser number of treatments would do the job just fine is lost.

Fortunately, they seem to be short on $$$ and having trouble following their own protocol. Nothing could be better for the program.

deknow

deknow


----------



## WLC

deknow:

You do not want to have colonies anywhere near conservation efforts to eradicate an invasive.

They're known to use very large amounts of insecticides/pesticides.

I'm reminded of those Italian beekeepers who went on a 'hunger strike' to protest pesticide use in an EU quarantine zone for the American Grapevine Leafhopper (a carrier of vine yellow disease).

You can't safely keep bees there.


----------



## sqkcrk

Then that excludes any rural setting where Emerald Ashbore Beetle infestation is being addressed.

So where is it safe to keep bees?


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> deknow:
> 
> You do not want to have colonies anywhere near conservation efforts to eradicate an invasive.
> 
> They're known to use very large amounts of insecticides/pesticides.


An invasive what? All weeds and unwanted insects in crops are invasive. Thats why they are sprayed. Whats the distinction between conservation and food production?


----------



## WLC

It's probably alot safer to keep bees near neonic coated seed crops (after planting) than near an invasive eradication site.

Farmers are alot better at controlling the amounts of pesticides applied because of costs (they'll go broke otherwise), and they're producing food or feed.

Eradication programs use massive amounts of pesticides, they're very expensive, and they don't want to miss anything. For example, nobody eats trees, last I heard.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> An invasive what? All weeds and unwanted insects in crops are invasive. Thats why they are sprayed. Whats the distinction between conservation and food production?


I can only imagine he is refering to invasive insects or weeds, such as Emerald Ashbore or purpleloostrife.

Programs I question the feasibility of. (a different Thread)


----------



## WLC

They use beetles on purple loosestrife.


----------



## sqkcrk

Naturally occuring beetles or imports? Chasing one invasive w/ another.

I believe that Emerald Ashbore and Longhorn beetles are treated for by IV like feeding of the trees being infested by these beetles w/ pesticides. WLC probably knows what kind.


----------



## WLC

Yes I do. It's an interesting story when it comes to how they developed biocontrol agents (which are themselves 'exotics') for Purple Loosestrife and wetlands restoration.

However, my point is still the same: it's how neonics pollute the environment, and how that can account for winter colony losses that the Harvard study is actually addressing (IMNSHO).


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> They use beetles on purple loosestrife.


Biological control of loosestrife has shown to be effective only until the next flooding event both drowns the beetles and spreads the seed downstream. We saw little loosestrife bloom in 2009 and 2010 then the floods of 2011 set up a big loosestrife bloom in 2012.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> It's probably alot safer to keep bees near neonic coated seed crops (after planting) than near an invasive eradication site.
> 
> Farmers are alot better at controlling the amounts of pesticides applied because of costs (they'll go broke otherwise), and they're producing food or feed.
> 
> Eradication programs use massive amounts of pesticides, they're very expensive, and they don't want to miss anything. For example, nobody eats trees, last I heard.


Why WLC, I think thats the nicest (and smartest) thing I have ever seen you write! Congratulations


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie:

You're welcome.

You pay for a technology, and you expect to get your money's worth, without any negative impacts.

We all know the dust issue needs to be fixed.

However, after reading the Goulson review, I can't believe that there is a soil type where clothianidin has a 1/2 life of over 15 years!

No farmer alive signed on for that kind of a surprise.


----------



## gmcharlie

like thats a bad thing?? hmm seed coating needed only every 10 years or so?? wish roundup worked that long!!!!!!!!

(just kidding)


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> It's probably alot safer to keep bees near neonic coated seed crops (after planting) than near an invasive eradication site.
> 
> Farmers are alot better at controlling the amounts of pesticides applied because of costs (they'll go broke otherwise), and they're producing food or feed.
> 
> Eradication programs use massive amounts of pesticides, they're very expensive, and they don't want to miss anything. For example, nobody eats trees, last I heard.


I am not sure of what rate equates with massive or what costs will break a farmer financially but here are a few facts. To kill off or burn down with glyphosate prior to a conservation reseeding requires a bit less than a half gallon per acre. The cost including application is about $20 dollars per acre. I did just such a reseeding a few years back on 100 acres of marginally productive land that I put into the conservation reserve program. I have maintained about 40 hives without any ill effects adjacent to the planting each year and they have always done well each year including the year the spraying was done and, of course, right across the road is the ever present corn field. I reseeded with a mixture of alfalfa and native grasses (Big Bluestem, Little Bluestem, Indiangrass and Needlegrass). I walked through it this morning doing some spot spraying of thistles and what a wonderful habitat it has become, alive with nesting birds and buzzing bees. The costs of the native grasses together with the planting was the biggest expense at about $50 per acre.


----------



## WLC

Well, soil type, and conditioners used, might explain alot of the discrepancies we're hearing about with regards to colony losses.

If you have the right soil type, the product has a low 1/2 life. The bees are fine.

If you have fuquay sandy loam, you're going to get residue build up. That could be a big part of the whole 30% winter loss issue.


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> If you have the right soil type, the [neonic] product has a low 1/2 life. The bees are fine. If you have fuquay sandy loam, you're going to get residue build up. That could be a big part of the whole 30% winter loss issue.


 No, because the geographic extent of fuquay series soils is very limited and not much corn/soybeans/canola/sunflowers are grown in fuquay soil areas. Corn for all purposes map: http://schillerinstitute.org/strate...nal Files/e1-4-corn_for_all_purposes_usda.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.com


----------



## gmcharlie

WOW thts intersting... The soils with the worst traits are located around where over 1/2 the package bees come from.........worst 1/2 life... best bee production.... from that I could conclude there a good thing!
GA package producers have pretty much 0 wither losses!


----------



## WLC

Jim:

Good job on the CRP native grasses. But. I was largely referring to the cost of treating trees, etc., w/ insecticides.

Bluediamond:

I think that the only way to answer the soil type vs colony losses question would be for someone to take available data and create a GIS map with overlays for colony losses and soil type.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> You do not want to have colonies anywhere near conservation efforts to eradicate an invasive.
> 
> They're known to use very large amounts of insecticides/pesticides.


Around here they aerial spray forest preserve land for gypsy moths using _Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki_ (Btk).


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> Interesting, you have protection using neonics only for 2 weeks? So, basically, you use neonics AND on top of it other insecticides! Horrible!


you completely missed the point, again....


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> Even the reported basic bee management isn't believable as it is written up. Hives were full in May and never required swarm prevention, never superd, never spun frames out, never added empty comb....and they were all being fed all summer...........
> 
> None of it makes any sense, and no explanation is offered...yet, Dr. Lu thinks policy should be changed based on such results.


Science and methodology arguments aside, Deknow makes a good point here. The reported bee behaviour and management sounds like the whole thing is a bit of a jack up. My suspicion is that at some subconscious level the researchers had an end goal in sight and set up an experiment to prove it. Scant attention was paid to peripheral details that did not fit the plan.

Could be wrong, but it does look that way.


----------



## deknow

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine...se-disorder/nXvIA5I6IcxFRxEOc8tpFI/story.html


> Winter came, and they saw nothing. The hives seemed fine. “We were starting to get discouraged,” Warchol says. “Dick and I were talking, saying, ‘Wow, there’s really nothing going on.’ ” Lu had the same reaction. “At that time,” he says, “I thought my hypothesis was wrong.”


also from that article, wrt dosing:


> On July 1, 2010, they started the pesticide regimen, beginning with very low doses, to make sure they didn’t kill the bees right away. They upped the amounts after four weeks to levels that Lu says were on the conservative end of what bees encounter in the real world — through syrup made from corn treated with neonicotinoids or nectar and pollen collected from contaminated flowers and crops.


which also makes zero sense. if they anted to make sure they didnt kill the bees outright, when they upped the dosage, they would not have made the "new lowest dose" twice what the "old higher dose" was.....not to mention that bees don't encounter imidacloprid in HFCS in the "real world".

deknow


----------



## camero7

I've been told that Lu doesn't care about bees at all and know nothing about them. the end game for him is to show that neonics affect the human brain in a similar manner.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well that should be easy to prove, using the same methods. Make the test people drink neonicitiniods at a level just low enough to not kill them outright. Later, double the dose. You will have proof that neonicitiniods are damaging to human brains, and maybe even fatal to the human.


----------



## gmcharlie

Oldtimer said:


> Well that should be easy to prove, using the same methods. Make the test people drink neonicitiniods at a level just low enough to not kill them outright. Later, double the dose. You will have proof that neonicitiniods are damaging to human brains, and maybe even fatal to the human.



Wer WLC, border beeman and a cpl others involved in that test??????


----------



## WLC

GMcharlie:

I probably consume more neonics than those bees did.

First of all, I would have chosen clothianidin. 

Secondly, I wouldn't have used the CCD term in my hypothesis. Just plain 'impact on Honeybee health'.

Thirdly, if I wanted to test HFCS for contaminants, I would have done so directly, although there is no evidence for neonics in HFCS.

Let's face it, Lu got lucky.


----------



## gmcharlie

It was a tounge in cheek comment about testing effects on humans........intended as a bit of wit... albiet small...


----------



## BigDawg

You were, huh? And who told you that? 



camero7 said:


> I've been told that Lu doesn't care about bees at all and know nothing about them. the end game for him is to show that neonics affect the human brain in a similar manner.


----------



## Tim Ives

gmcharlie said:


> Real easy, because the options are not only worse, but ludicrious........... If you yell fire in a crowded theater and there is none, its a crime, but who knows some day you may be right...
> 
> Right now a bunch of goofballs with no real stake in the game are screaming about something they are totaly clueless about.... 2 years ago it was cell phone towers.........
> 
> Sorry, but Most here screaming the loudest, have no real stake. they are not in Neonics areas, they only run a few hives, and they don't farm......Those that feed the world, are in the most part the most eco friendly people you will ever know, and do more on a DAILY basis to help feed and improve the world, and their own lives, than the sreaming clowns.
> 
> Guys like Tim Ives, Ron Householder myself and thousands of others are in the thickest areas of "the problem" and yet doing great... that doesn't matter to these "experts" Ask Tim which Scentist has been to his place, or responded to emails......
> 
> These guys are the same ones screaming about unsafe food, high prices, and goverment subsidies all in the same conversations. they have no answers other than to scream and whine about something they personaly are pretty clueless about, they site what they read as Fact, without regaurd to the methods or logics behind them.......


One..... Randy Oliver spent a day here, I took him to 3 different yards. The most notable yard is the Apple Orchard which I keep bees at year around. Corn fields 4' away from hives, Apple trees get sprayed 3 times a year with Assail (a neonic) dandelion below the first time, Dutch clover below the second time and buckhorns the 3rd time. Zero loss of hives and my absolute best honey producing yard. Partially due to the 60 acre CRP across the road. 1/2 mile in 3 different directions SEED CORN. Which gets even more insecticides used on it vs $7 bushel maize. 

If neonics are the problem I shouldnt have any bees. 9 different yards, everyone you can throw a stone to hit a corn/bean field. 

Before all this vast acreage of fields get planted, solid purple with hensbit, purple deadnettle and chickweed. That's what my beed are building up on. Mid to late July bees are putting up supers of honey from soybeans..

So what is really the problem??? O yes sugar free and treatment free hives....


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Tim,

I would really love to see your sugar and treatment free approach working in other locations, too. No sugar, no treatments and you are fine. That would be an easy solution to the trouble the bees are in.

I have been keeping bees on honey and no treatments for ten years now. Still those bees are struggling to survive and thrive.

My apiaries are surrounded by hundreds of hectars of corn and canola. This year I lost all my flying bees in one day through canola spraying. Yes, the colonies did "survive". But as you can figure, loosing flying bees is not doing the bees any good.

The effects of pesticides I observe is loosing flying bees continiously, not the hammer like this year, but an accelerated death of the flying bees. We see a lot of queen failures. Also the brood nest shrinks down to nothing in the midst of the bee season. Which is also very remarkable.

My bees' situation got better, since I avoid being too close to fields treated with neonics. The closer you are to the fields, the higher the damage. 50 meter is better than 15 meter. Also I trap pollen a lot. I try to trap as much of the pollen of corn and canola (and asparagus...) and feed pollen patties instead. The appearance and wintering got much better, treatment or no treatment.

So it must be location, that sugar and treatment free is sufficiently working for you. You supposingly have alternative pollen sources. We have a pollen dearth during summer, because we don't have much uncultivated land and no forests. The bees jump at corn pollen and forage for it, because there is no alternative. It is said, that bees sort of sense the pesticide. And avoid it. If the location doesn't provide any alternative pollen, the bees are forced to take it.

I also suspect it has something to do with water they collect. Because what other reason could produce differences in placing a hive closer or further away from the fields? Must be water. Morning dew or something. I provide water for the bees, too.

Since trapping the pollen, feeding pollen patties and providing fresh uncontaminated water the situation got much better.

Tim - some questions:

1. How far away do you place your hives from the fields?
2. Are there alternative pollen sources?
3. Is there any woodland nearby?
4. Where do your bees take water?

Just want to understand the different results we get, both sugar and treatment free and embedded into industrial agricultural fields.

Thanks,

Bernhard


----------



## Tim Ives

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Tim,
> 
> I would really love to see your sugar and treatment free approach working in other locations, too. No sugar, no treatments and you are fine. That would be an easy solution to the trouble the bees are in.
> 
> I have been keeping bees on honey and no treatments for ten years now. Still those bees are struggling to survive and thrive.
> 
> My apiaries are surrounded by hundreds of hectars of corn and canola. This year I lost all my flying bees in one day through canola spraying. Yes, the colonies did "survive". But as you can figure, loosing flying bees is not doing the bees any good.
> 
> The effects of pesticides I observe is loosing flying bees continiously, not the hammer like this year, but an accelerated death of the flying bees. We see a lot of queen failures. Also the brood nest shrinks down to nothing in the midst of the bee season. Which is also very remarkable.
> 
> My bees' situation got better, since I avoid being too close to fields treated with neonics. The closer you are to the fields, the higher the damage. 50 meter is better than 15 meter. Also I trap pollen a lot. I try to trap as much of the pollen of corn and canola (and asparagus...) and feed pollen patties instead. The appearance and wintering got much better, treatment or no treatment.
> 
> So it must be location, that sugar and treatment free is sufficiently working for you. You supposingly have alternative pollen sources. We have a pollen dearth during summer, because we don't have much uncultivated land and no forests. The bees jump at corn pollen and forage for it, because there is no alternative. It is said, that bees sort of sense the pesticide. And avoid it. If the location doesn't provide any alternative pollen, the bees are forced to take it.
> 
> I also suspect it has something to do with water they collect. Because what other reason could produce differences in placing a hive closer or further away from the fields? Must be water. Morning dew or something. I provide water for the bees, too.
> 
> Since trapping the pollen, feeding pollen patties and providing fresh uncontaminated water the situation got much better.
> 
> Tim - some questions:
> 
> 1. How far away do you place your hives from the fields?
> 2. Are there alternative pollen sources?
> 3. Is there any woodland nearby?
> 4. Where do your bees take water?
> 
> Just want to understand the different results we get, both sugar and treatment free and embedded into industrial agricultural fields.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bernhard


Interesting Bernhard, especially since you eliminated the biggest common denominator of losses I hear or seen. The feeding of sugar.

1) 3 of the 9 yards are in small wooded areas with crop fields across the road(s) 100meters. Other 6 yards 1-30 meters from corn/beans.
2) alfalfa fields but most of them are Gmo and usually gets cut at bloom. Do have problems with the new high speed realcutters. Doesn't give bees chance to escape. I've participated past 4 years in the USDA testing. This year pollen samples are being analysed.
3) woodlands very minimal, little 5-10 acres plots scattered. Most trees are in fence rows between fields along with various wildflowers, which might be 10 meters wide.
4) water sources drainage ditches. My house is the only yard that gets the freshest water. Mostly to keep bees out of the neighbors pool down aways.

Uncommon denominators. You have canola. 

Hives are overwintered in 3 deeps,wrapped, insulated tops. Right in the Lake Michigan lake effect snow belt. 

Genetics-- local swarms/cutouts. Haven't bought bees since 06'. Raise my own queens from the earliest swarm cells.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I was playing and experimenting a lot to crack the problem of the symbiosis between varroas and bees. Certainly the varroa itself is not (!) the main factor in the game. To me it appears varroa is just the executioner.

Anyway, I can say sugar as a main cause can be ruled out, too. Of course honey is a lot better for the bees, no doubt. But most essential nutrients bees get from pollen, so honey plays a rather minor part in bee nutrition.

I also tried large hives after being in contact with Oscar Perone. But that doesn't seem to make a difference. The broodnest shrinked in midst of the season, even with young queens, lots of brood combs and pollen. Followed by superseduring.

Either is has to do something with the nutrional quality of pollen. Or contamination with pesticides.

This study showed that the number of pesticides found in pollen were correlated with superseduring:

http://www.extension.org/pages/6377...ve-project:-abiotic-site-effects#.Uig7MWthiSO

I reckon it is a mixture of insecticides and fungicides that kills of the beneficial microbes that ferment the bee bread. Fungi play a major part in bee bread fermenting.

I tried to summarize what I think is going on here:
http://www.immenfreunde.de/forum/download/file.php?id=134

It's malnutrition plus continual premature death of foragers that leads to a collapse of the hive.

This is why good nutrition really enhances the situation. Be it through pollen patties feeding - or keeping bees in a hive with lots of stores all year round. Or provide enough brood comb to make up for the premature losses. Replacing the dead bees quickly with new bees.

I am really looking forward for the results of the pollen sampling in your apiary. I would really appreciate if you share the results with us.

Bernhard


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Tim, what is the density of the bee population in your area. 

In a 2 mile radius within my home apiary there are about 200 colonies wintering and about 50 stationary through summer. 

There is a high density of bee colonies in Germany anyway. In 2012 there were 622,000 colonies. Officially. Since then 30-50 % died during the 2011/2012 winter. About 300,000 colonies. Those were replaced with package bees from Italy and Spain. For comparison: In 1991 there were 1,214,702 colonies in Germany.

Nowadays we have 10 colonies per square mile (statistically) which is drop from 20 colonies/square mile in 1955. Losses are about 15-30 % each winter - but much higher on a local scale. The local high losses can not be found in the same region year after year. The opposite. It seems that the losses come and go. There is no real pattern. 

So what is the bee density around your apiaries?


----------



## Tim Ives

Driftwatch.com Indiana.


----------

