# 600 Hives Lost in Ontario--CCD/Neonics Suspected Cause



## BigDawg

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/2013/06/26/almost-40-million-bees-lost-from-elmwood-farm


----------



## gmcharlie

Shouold testing prove it was the case, It would be the first huge die off from corn planting dust...... Somehow I am sure there is something else going on here.....Quite teh Feel good article..... Testing is inconclusive... hmmm we know how to test for neonics... and yet that was inconclusive??


----------



## yankee joe

The wild flowers are great source of forage so long as the seeds are not treated with neonics. I have questioned several here in NC about the seed treatment. People that should know but no one has an answer. Or are we killing our bees in with these flowers?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

here's an example of what could happen here if neonics ever get banned: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/20-children-die-after-eating-school-lunch-in-India-4669376.php

be careful what you wish for


----------



## cerezha

Organophosphate(s) is using in combination with other pesticides and on GM crops. Did you see that article about potatoes in another thread? They treated potatoes 10 or more times here in US, NOW. Why you worry about Indian kids (sure, we all worry) and do not worry about your own? Do you know what they eat at school? If they did not die, it does not mean, they are on healthy diet. Sorry, nothing personal. The answer for the most pesticide issues was proposed by Jim Lion if I remember correctly on this forum and it is very simple - crop rotation. I would add - and other nature-friendly techniques (soil enrichment, multiculture, beneficial insects/plants etc). I am just curious, if that organophosphate in India was produced in US?


----------



## Richard Cryberg

CCD is not caused by pesticides. Will insecticides kill bees? Of course they will. That is why they are called insecticides. Properly used do they kill any significant number of bees? Nope. No different than cars. Cars kill people. Properly used they do not kill people. With cars you follow the traffic laws. With insecticides you follow the label rules.


----------



## hedges

Actually the jury's still out on pesticides killing bees (hence all the articles). The EU's agricultural board just banned ANOTHER pesticide because they deemed it was..."identified as posing an acute risk to Europe's honey bee population". Those are agricultural scientists.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

hedges said:


> Actually the _*jury's still out on pesticides killing bees *_(hence all the articles).


Really?? You actually believe that insecticides *don't *kill bees? :scratch: :s Do you have any evidence to support this rather outlandish claim?

Of course [insecticide] pesticides kill bees, and many other insects!

:ws:

Just to be clear, I am *not *advocating banning of pesticides. They are very useful when _properly applied_, in accordance with the label (and Federal law). As _Richard Cryberg_ correctly pointed out, simply because a product has the *potential *to cause harm (like automobiles do) is no reason to ban that product!


----------



## hedges

Okay, perhaps I should say the jury's still out on pesticides causing CCD.

I'm not rabid. I'm not some hipster. I understand the value to agriculture of pesticides. But that has no bearing in an objectively critical conversation about the causes of CCD. People love to put the cart before the horse when a potential conclusion isn't to their liking.


----------



## BigDawg

It's pretty obvious he means pesticides _unintentionally_ killing bees....That's the heart of the issue.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

BigDawg said:


> It's pretty obvious he means pesticides _unintentionally_ killing bees....


In a thread involving such a controversial issue, opinions are all over the board. You are taking serious creative license to assert that the OP actually means the _opposite _of what he actually said. 

And, in fact, you can see above that _Hedges _has revised/restated his position, but his revised comment does not match yours.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

ban neonic pesticides and the US starts using organophosphates. 

Unlike Neonic pesticides which are designed to not impact vertebrates, Organophosphates target all organisms, including large mammals (such as humans) and as we can see Organophosphates can "kill humans dead". Also contrast that Organophosphates spray directly into the environment (land, air, water) and is used as a potency at the discretion of the farmer, vs seed treatments which are pretreated with the intended potency before given to the farmer and the pesticide stays with the plant (aside from a little bit of talc dust in off-label usage).

This is essentially the hypocrisy of the 'ban neonic' movement laid to bare. To sum it up, they want to move away from the safer modern pesticides and go back to the previous generation of pesticides that were much more toxic than DDT!


----------



## hedges

Or ban both and find some other way to keep crops viable.

And for the record, I agree with big dawg. You can play cute, deflective semantics games all day, sidetrack. No one's going to change their views for it.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

GMO would be viable alternative to pesicides. Even so, I think you'd want to have something viable AND online and working before you ban an essential product that's core to feeding the 5 billion people in the world.

otherwise it's essentially mass starvation until a new alternative is online.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

and I might add, the case for banning Neonic pesticides hasn't been made. It seems like streamlining how its used (seed treatments not requiring talc, better education and monitoring on spray-based and root based treatment) is a much better solution than banning it.

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That said, I'd expect in 10-15 years most insect pesticide will be obsolete, replaced in near entirety by GMO plants


----------



## Richard Cryberg

If pesticides are the cause of CCD I will never have a single hive die of CCD. I live in a forested area. The closest Ag row crops are over three miles. Bees do not fly a mile to forage in forests. Yet two beeks who are in exactly the same situation I am in experienced losses last year of 80% and 10%. I was lucky and did not have any losses in my four hives. Real close on one thou. It barely made it thru the winter and not due to lack of food either. April 15 it was one frame of bees. The 80% loss was package bees from the south. That guy also does nothing at all to control Varroa. Both myself and the guy who lost 10% do non chemical things to control Varroa. The guy who lost 10% was seeing more like 30 to 40% only four years ago. But he has pushed hard on the genetics (only strong survivors stay around) for the last ten years. It is pretty obvious his genetics are getting better. He also goes thru every frame of brood weekly and mechanically grubs out all drone cells. By far my best hive is one of his swarms.

I do have a few weed fields (mainly grass) that gets cut for horse hay once a year that are in my bees area. There is zero chemical input on those fields. The bees get practically zero forage from those fields. Walk out into one of those fields and you can not find a bee. Cutting once a year, generally sometime in July, kills all the bee friendly weeds such as golden rod and asters. Slowly some birds foot trefoil is moving into those fields so maybe in a few years they will produce a little honey. My whole spring honey crop is trees starting with maples in March and ending with basswood in early July. They probably get about a pound from clover in my yard in late June. No chemical input on my yard. Why would I want grass to grow faster? From mid July until early September all they have of the slightest significance is birds foot trefoil in the ditches. That does not even cover the honey they use to raise brood for those six weeks. The fall flow is all golden rod and asters from ditches and unmowed edges of hay fields and openings in the woods.

So, if CCD is a result of pestcides how can it exist where I live? Yet it clearly exists big time. It is by far the largest single problem in keeping bees locally. It is just as big a problem here as it is right next to a thousand acres of corn or beans.


----------



## BigDawg

BayHighlandBees said:


> and I might add, the case for banning Neonic pesticides hasn't been made.


True, but neither has the case been made that they are not contributing to CCD. In fact, there are many aspects of the testing regimens prior to approval that are severely lacking in terms of protecting pollinators.

For example, no long-term field studies of the impacts upon bees by neonics have been conducted. Similarly, manufacturers are not required to carry out research relative to the sub-lethal impacts upon bees, nor are they required to research the impacts upon bee larvae due to the build up of neonics residues inside the hive and comb.



> That said, I'd expect in 10-15 years most insect pesticide will be obsolete, replaced in near entirety by GMO plants


Given the growing body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrating harm to human health, harm to pollinators, and harm to feedlot animals from exposure to GMO's, the growing global movement to ban them, and the growing dissatisfaction from farmers who are seeing their seed and pesticide costs soar year after year, and the continued incidences of GMO "ghost crop" contamination like the Oregon wheat and the GMO "rice gone wild", I would expect that in 10-15 years GMO's and neonics will become nearly obsolete due both to rapidly declining consumer demand and new regulatory guidelines that actually protect the public and pollinators.


----------



## BigDawg

Richard Cryberg said:


> If pesticides are the cause of CCD I will never have a single hive die of CCD. I live in a forested area. The closest Ag row crops are over three miles. Bees do not fly a mile to forage in forests.
> So, if CCD is a result of pestcides how can it exist where I live? Yet it clearly exists big time. It is by far the largest single problem in keeping bees locally. It is just as big a problem here as it is right next to a thousand acres of corn or beans.


Richard, not all colony losses are considered CCD. In the case of your neighbor for example, it's pretty clear his losses came from varroa. CCD specifically refers to (from what I can garner...) a case where a beekeeper has a thriving hive, only to return a few weeks later and find all the bees gone (not dead in the hive, not dead in a pile outside the hive--just gone) except for a handful of workers and the queen.


----------



## TWall

cerezha said:


> I am just curious, if that organophosphate in India was produced in US?



I wouldn't be surprised at all if the organophosphate was produced in India. India has lots of chimical plants. Remember the explosion in Bopal India? They were making Sevin.

Tom


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Given the growing body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrating harm to human health, harm to pollinators, and harm to feedlot animals from exposure to GMO's, the growing global movement to ban them, and the growing dissatisfaction from farmers who are seeing their seed and pesticide costs soar year after year, and the continued incidences of GMO "ghost crop" contamination like the Oregon wheat and the GMO "rice gone wild", I would expect that in 10-15 years GMO's and neonics will become nearly obsolete due both to rapidly declining consumer demand and new regulatory guidelines that actually protect the public and pollinators.


I believe the opposite is true. I am not aware of any medical profession asssociations claiming GMO's are harming human health, nor feedlot animal associations complaining of harm, nor corn, cotton, soybean and canola farmer associations complaining. The GMO contamination of the Oregon wheat is looking more and more like an isolated act of sabotage according to Monsanto and South Korea has resumed buying US wheat. Some new GMOs and neonics are coming out in the next year or two and farmers appear ready to embrace them (e.g. the GMO's that are tolerant to two herbicides instead of just one). China, the Latin American and South African countries are embracing GMO's more and more. Europe seems to be the only region of the world resisting GMOs and neonics...it will be interesting to see what they will do two years from now after they realize banning neonics did not improve bee health statistics.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Dog,
its awfully hard to prove a negative. 

for example, Coffee has never been proven to be carcinogenic, but its never been proven to not be carcinogenic and therefore its listed by the United Nations (we know how scientific they are) as a possible carcinogen. If we follow your advise, we should ban the use of coffee until we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it or any of its components (pre and post roasting, water used in making it, soil nutrients of the soil it's grown in, etc) do in fact not cause cancer. Only after exploring and exhausting every hypothetical possibility can the coffee be allowed to be grown and consumed. 

If you went with that approach everything would be banned. 

That being said, the leading (and obvious) indicator that Neonic pesticides do not contribute to CCD (also observed by Richard above) is that the footprint for neonic pesticide use does not correspond to CCD impacted areas. On top of that some of the heaviest use areas of neonic applications (such as miles and miles of Canola fields in North Dakota) have thriving bees.





BigDawg said:


> True, but neither has the case been made that they are not contributing to CCD.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

BigDawg said:


> Given the growing body of scientific evidence clearly demonstrating harm to human health, harm to pollinators, and harm to feedlot animals from exposure to GMO's.


what evidence was that? Is there anything that you can site?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Dog, 
what is your concern about GMO? What is it that GMO plants are going to do to us or do to the world that you are worried about? No one has ever really answered that question.


----------



## woodguyrob

BayHighlandBees said:


> Dog,
> what is your concern about GMO? What is it that GMO plants are going to do to us or do to the world that you are worried about? No one has ever really answered that question.


That's the problem who the heck knows what these GMO products are doing to humans, animals, insects etc. But the companies still get to market & sell the seeds and change the face of agriculture.

Based on passed claims from "those in the know" who years ago said eggs are bad for you too much cholesterol RED alert stop eating eggs to ..fast forward eggs are super good for you or margarine is good for you fast forward...hyrdro fats are not good for you. Are we to believe anything a company like Monsanto says and for that matter anything the USDA, EPA or FDA claims? 

In my opinion, contrary to what many humans think, we don't know how it should be (tweaking nature creating GMO's for our reasons) nature knows / is what's best and in my opinion it's not a seed created in a petri dish or test tube.


----------



## sqkcrk

600? Is that all? I had a call from a guy from AZ who lost half of his 400 hives to the heat. He told me about another beekeeper who lost thousands. Why can't someone do something about these record temperatures?


----------



## cerezha

Absolutely true - I am from another planet. But, you guys just contradict to themselves - the point was that insecticide in fact kills people and it kills other beneficial creatures (human is not beneficial, I am sorry). Comparison to the cars is absolute bogus - I wish pesticides would be tested for safety so vigorously as cars! Did you witness how many cars manufacturers re-called when any safety issue discovered? Why pesticides are different? They have to be called back, re-tested and returned to the market if proven safe. Why it is such problem? On my planet, we do not understand this. Sorry.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Sergey says "I wish pesticides would be tested for safety so vigorously as cars!"

No, you are not from another planet. Simply uneducated on Ag topics.

Pesticides are tested for safety far more rigorously than cars. Cars only need to pass a few crash tests before marketing. Go read the US code of federal regulations and learn what the pesticide registration laws are in this country. In fact pesticides marketed in the US are tested far more rigorously for safety than pharmaceuticals marketed in the US. How many on here take a statin to lower cholesterol for instance? If statins were pesticides the US EPA would not register them for use on any crop. They are way too dangerous to use as a pesticide based on what the limited safety testing needed to register a pharma product turned up. An Ag candidate with those findings would never even be submitted for registration. An Ag product with problems like statins have would have been killed early in development. That said, remember that every chemical is a poison. All it takes is a high enough dose. That includes water and oxygen.


----------



## BigDawg

Richard this is an oft-repeated claim: that pesticides are heavily tested, have passed those tests/safety guidelines, and therefore are safe.

And yet every single harmful substance that has been pulled from the market was once declared to be "safe" as well.

They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe. And yet years later, we now know that NONE of those products are in fact, safe. AND, we also know, through lawsuits and the discovery process, that in ALL of those cases the companies making the claims to the public and to govt regulators that those products were safe, KNEW, for DECADES, that those products were in fact NOT safe but they LIED in order to keep them on the market and keep the profits rolling in.

Specifically regarding neonics and CCD, as I understand it, in order to get approval for a new pesticide, manufacturers and NOT required to do long-term, (in the field testing or even the lab) relative to harm to non-target pollinators from sub-lethal exposure to pesticide products. Of COURSE we know that insecticides kill insects--one of the key questions in CCD research is at what level do all of these systemic pesticides build up in the comb, bee pollen, etc. At what level of exposure *over time*, at sub-lethal levels, do neonics weaken/impact bee health so that they become more succeptible to viruses, pathogens, etc. Those kinds of studies SHOULD be required, but they are not, in no small part due to heavy lobbying from pesticide manufacturers who constantly deride the "heavy hand of government and over-burdensome regulation."

In addition to not being required to test sub-lethal effects, they are also not required to study the impacts of their pesticides on bee larvae, nor or they required to study the impacts of their poisons on the colony as a whole--a living, breathing super-organism. 

So, until REALISTIC studies and research are conducted that really examine the potential harm from pesticides in a meaningful way, excuse me if I don't take the industry's word for it that their product is safe because they have a long and well-documented history of lying through their teeth and only meeting the barest minimum of scientific research--and in several cases these same people have been caught FALSIFYING documents and BRIBING government officials in order to get their products into the marketplace.


----------



## Jonathan Hofer

cerezha said:


> Absolutely true - I am from another planet.


I would like to personally commend the positive attitude Sergey has demonstrated on this forum. In numerous posts and threads, I have read where people have rudely posted references to his intelligence and understanding. Without saying whether they were right or wrong, there must be other ways of "educating" someone without telling them that they have "no clue", "completely clueless", "completely missed the mark" etc. 

Once again, kudos to Sergey for not letting this affect him. I am surprised that the moderators tolerate such rudeness directed towards a poster on this forum. 


JH


----------



## Dave360

Don't forget Herbicides I lost 5 nucs to 2,4-d when a farmer where I had placed some bees for pollination treated for pig weed he didn't think it would hurt the bees since 2,4-d is not and insecticide 
I had thought that since not much row crops are grown in my area I would have no problem from chemicals but it turns out they use herbicides real regular to keep brush from growing in pastures 

David


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe.


That's ancient history - 1960's and earlier decades - before there was an EPA - before there was extensive testing.

What major product mistakes did the ag chemical and biotech industries made in the 1980's - 2010's?


----------



## BigDawg

BayHighlandBees said:


> Dog,
> its awfully hard to prove a negative.


Well, science doesn't ever "prove" anything-it merely tests hypotheses. In the case of neonics and CCD, it's my understanding that A) the pesticide companies themselves often do most, if not all, of the testing and B) they are not required to do long-term testing to measure the cumulative effects of sub-lethal exposures on pollinators. 



> for example, Coffee has never been proven to be carcinogenic, but its never been proven to not be carcinogenic and therefore its listed by the United Nations (we know how scientific they are) as a possible carcinogen. If we follow your advise, we should ban the use of coffee until we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it or any of its components (pre and post roasting, water used in making it, soil nutrients of the soil it's grown in, etc) do in fact not cause cancer. Only after exploring and exhausting every hypothetical possibility can the coffee be allowed to be grown and consumed.
> 
> If you went with that approach everything would be banned.


You're using extreme, hypothetical arguments to make your point.

Did you know that the GMO industry claims that they don't need to do human testing on GMO crops because they are a "known product?" Their logic is that humans have been eating corn for hundreds of years with no ill effect, and, they claim that their GMO corn is really just plain old corn with a little bit of "genetic tinkering", and therefore they should not have to do human studies on the health consequences of eating GMO corn because corn is a "known product." 

Of course they tell a dramatically different story to the patent office and when in court suing for patent infringement--then all of the sudden the GMO corn they sell is highy unique and unlike any other corn in existence.....



> That being said, the leading (and obvious) indicator that Neonic pesticides do not contribute to CCD (also observed by Richard above) is that the footprint for neonic pesticide use does not correspond to CCD impacted areas. On top of that some of the heaviest use areas of neonic applications (such as miles and miles of Canola fields in North Dakota) have thriving bees.


The absence of evidence is NEVER the same thing as evidence of absence. Do you know that less than 1 in 10 smokers will get lung cancer? So, therefore the other 9 smokers can say "hey, I smoke all the time and I didn't get lung cancer, therefore smoking does not cause lung cancer--I'm living proof."

Of course, this is faulty logic. So is saying that many hives near neonic crops don't suffer from CCD, therefore neonics don't cause CCD. This is basic logic and scientific method we're talking about here--it's not rocket science.

Is it possible that neonics have no role whatsoever in CCD? Sure it is. But there is a growing body of literature and real life examples that strongly suggest that neonics ARE having an impact upon CCD, and I think we owe it to ourselves to REALLY find out what's going on instead of just listening to the self-serving claims of the pesticide industry who swear their products are safe--just like they told us that PCB's, Dioxin, DDT, etc were safe.....


----------



## BigDawg

Several scientists are now acknowledging that current testing protocols may be not thorough enough to really understand the long-term consequences of newer, genetic-based technologies. 

For example, there are new pesticides and insect-resistant crops close to coming to market that are based upon RNA interference. However, current testing parameters and protocols are not sufficient to really understand the long-term consequences of their use, and scientists are calling for more stringent testing protocols:

"The safety concern, as with other types of genetic modification and with pesticides generally, is that the artificial interfering RNAs will also harm desirable insects or other animals. And the way interfering RNA works means that simply testing for lethality might not detect important damaging effects. For example, an interfering RNA might have the unintended effect of suppressing the action of a gene needed for reproduction in a beneficial species. Standard laboratory testing would detect no harm, but there could be ecological disruption in fields because of the effects on reproduction."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130716080026.htm

I believe we currently have the same problem with neonics--that current testing protocols only require testing for lethality, while there is no requirement for data on the cumulative effects of sub-lethal exposure.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

BigDawg said:


> They told us PCB's were safe. They told us tobacco was safe. They told us Dioxin was safe. They told us DDT was safe.


of course these were all examples during the early 1900's before any regulation or testing was put into place. Not really relevant to compare to the pre and post EPA and FDA eras


----------



## hedges

FenFen, aspertame, rBGH...

Heck, just last year coke and pepsi had to pull a coloring they used in their colas because it's a carcinogen.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I expect GMO's will get much more acceptance when a new version of soy is inevitably developed that contains no natural isoflavone phytoestrogen toxins in them. isoflavones are found in all soybeans and is part of the plant natural defense against pests. Most people in the US don't eat enough soy for the toxins in them to become a concern, but if you are a vegetarian and soy is your favorite protein then the phytoestrogens in soy set you up for a lot of late in life diseases (alzheimers, thyroid diseases, parkinsons, dimentia, brain shrinkage etc). The Japanese centuries ago were aware of the toxins in soybeans and tofu and found ways to reduce the isoflavones via fermentation (the fermentation used to make soy sauce, miso, natto), but the non-fermented soy products (edamame, tofu, soy milk) still have the toxins in them.

Now if all these vegetarian GMO protesters get access to a genetically modified soybean that contains no phytoestrogens in them where they could eat soy daily without any adverse toxic effects then I think all of this silly Luddite protest movement goes away.

http://rense.com/general3/soy.htm


----------



## BayHighlandBees

hedges said:


> FenFen, aspertame, rBGH...
> 
> Heck, just last year coke and pepsi had to pull a coloring they used in their colas because it's a carcinogen.


the carcinogen in pepsi: burnt sugar
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sreekrishnamutt/eBCL_LqcqpM


----------



## BayHighlandBees

for those interested in reading Randy Oliver's perspective on GMO plants:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sic...llapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/


----------



## hedges

I'm not a Luddite to expect a more vetted and objectively critical conversation about the various vectors for disease in bees' lives and in my own, without obstructionist, deflecting crap from some agro-lobby.

But yeah, the biggest problem for Americans (as far as I can see it) about the soy is the fact that hydrolyzed soy protein is getting included in more and more things. I mean, we could probably sit here and talk for days about all the bad things in fast food, but it's all loaded with this crap...which has concentrated levels of those phytoestrogens.

But even if they created some wonder soy without these things, it would still be warranted to have an involved and ongoing conversation about the potential dangers and health risks associated with that new plant.


----------



## cerezha

Richard Cryberg said:


> ... Go read the US code of federal regulations and learn what the pesticide registration laws are in this country. ...


 It is sort of custom there at beesource, which you probably missed being new here - for statements such as above, we normally ask the reference(s)  - a link to *particular* article, law etc. or just citation of the original with proper reference. If you feel you could educate me, than, please, provide sources to support your statements. I would appreciate if you pointed to particular laws etc with reference numbers etc. Many than ks for cooperation  I love education!


----------



## cerezha

Jonathan Hofer said:


> I would like to personally commend the positive attitude...


 Oooo thank you so much. It seems to me normal at beesource to insult people publicly - it increases the thread's attendance. I noticed that if I participate in the tread, the attendance increased by factor of 2  I guess, I am beneficial to beesource. There are lot of great people at beesource who I admire for their knowledge and expertise.


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> of course these were all examples during the early 1900's before any regulation or testing was put into place. Not really relevant to compare to the pre and post EPA and FDA eras


Approved firs by EPA and than suspended:

year 2011 *EPA Issues Stop Sale Order to DuPont on Sale and Distribution of Imprelis Herbicide *

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued an order to E.I. DuPont de Nemours (DuPont) directing the company to immediately halt the sale, use or distribution of Imprelis, an herbicide marketed to control weeds that has been reported to be harming a large number of trees, including Norway spruce and white pine. The order, issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requires DuPont to stop the sale and distribution of Imprelis in the U.S. and outlines specific conditions to ensure that the removal of Imprelis from the market meets legal requirements...
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpres...284e7190e1187415852578e9005e49c6!OpenDocument
Also:
*Product registration suspensions under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B). *
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/suspensions.htm
_Note - for readability I truncated/reformat the data see link for original._
*Product name Active ingredient Reg number Registrant name Suspension date *
Acticide MBL 5505 1,2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one 67071-52 Lynn P. Tordo, M.S.
Acarosan Moist Powder Benzoic Acid 59820-4 Brazos Associates, Inc. Agent for Allegropharma Joachim Ganzer KG 6/10/2010 
Benzyl Benzoate Miticide Technical Benzoic Acid 59820-5 
Bissell Acarosan Dust Mite Powder Benzoic Acid 6297-6 
Grubtox Lawn Grub and Insect Control Carbaryl 4-142 
Bonide Sevin 5% Dust Insecticide Carbaryl 4-143 
Bonide Sevin Garden Dust Carbaryl 4-413 
Roebic Root ENDZ Copper Compounds 7792-5 
Winter Tablets "W" Copper Compounds 3525-102 
Best 4 Servis Brand DDVP 10 Pound Oil Solution 6/29/2012 
Best 4 Servis Brand DDVP Emulsifiable Spray 6/29/2012 
Technical Sodium Salt of 2,4-D (-16) 2,4-D 35935-19 
Riverdale Sodium Salt of 2,4-D 2,4-D 228-123 
Turf Builder Plus 2 W/S for Grass MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-160 
Scotts Lawn Pro Lawn Weed Control Plus Fertilizer MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-218 
Scotts Lawn Pro Weed N' Feed MCPA (2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) 538-222 
Naphthalene Acetic Acid 5887-169 Black Leaf Vitamin B1 Solution 6/29/2012 
Naphthalene Acetic Acid 43905-1 Wood’s Rooting Compound 6/29/2012 
Permethrin 15297-9 Bio-Groom Lasting Residual Action Repel-35 Insect Control Spray 6/29/2012 
Permethrin 71280-6 Migratol BP-1 6/29/2012 
Permethrin 71280-7 Migratol BPX-002 6/29/2012
ARI Piperonyl Butoxide 7754-51 ARI Yard & Patio Formula I 6/29/2012 
Piperonyl Butoxide 72726-1 Poridon Equine Insecticidal Pour-On 6/29/2012 
Prometon 10088-55 Non-selective Herbicide #3 6/29/2012 
Prometon 10088-83 Prometon 12.5% Herbicide Concentrate 6/29/2012 
Prometon 10807-146 Weed-a-cide Concentrate 6/29/2012 
Prometon 10807-206 Misty Weed-a-cide CF 6/29/2012
Agent for BioDerm Lab. Pyrethrins 15297-1 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Shampoo for Dogs & Cats 6/29/2012
Pyrethrins 15297-7 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick – 14 Residual Spray with Lanolin Shampoo 6/29/2012 
Pyrethrins 15297-14 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Pyrethrin Dip Conc. For Dogs & Cats 6/29/2012 
Pyrethrins 15297-17 Bio-Groom Flea & Tick Pyrethrin Spray 6/29/2012 
Pyrethrins 15297-19 Bio-Groom Ear Mite Treatment 6/29/2012 
Pyrethrins 29909-1 Rid Flea and Tick Shampoo Concentration for Dogs and Cats 6/29/2012 
Pyrethrins 29909-2 Cardinal Flea and Tick Shampoo for Dogs and Cats 6/29/2012 
.......
REPCO-TOX Space Spray Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-101 
Fog Kill Oil Base Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-107 
Aqua-Kill Insecticide Resmethrin 10807-110 
True Stop Insecticide Rotenone 74343-1 Stet Acquisition, Inc. 2/19/2011 
Rotenone 6458-5 Rotenone Resin for Manufacturing Use Only 6/29/2012 
...
Bonide Kleenup Grass & Weed Killer, Ready To Use Sodium Acifluorfen 4-433 
Thiram Technical Thiram 8236-2


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> I believe the opposite is true. I am not aware of any medical profession asssociations claiming GMO's are harming human health, (e.g. the GMO's that are tolerant to two herbicides instead of just one).


 Yep Agent orange is back


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> That's ancient history - 1960's and earlier decades - before there was an EPA - before there was extensive testing.
> 
> What major product mistakes did the ag chemical and biotech industries made in the 1980's - 2010's?


 Tactic for bees


----------



## Barry

Jonathan Hofer said:


> I am surprised that the moderators tolerate such rudeness directed towards a poster on this forum.


http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?226194-Forum-Rules

"Considering the real-time nature of the Beesource Beekeeping Forums, it is impossible for us to review all messages . . . Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by Report Post icon or by email ([email protected])."


----------



## mac

BlueDiamond said:


> That's ancient history - 1960's and earlier decades - before there was an EPA - before there was extensive testing.
> 
> What major product mistakes did the ag chemical and biotech industries made in the 1980's - 2010's?


The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[20] According to one study, as many as 25 million workers in developing countries may suffer mild pesticide poisoning yearly.[34]


----------



## gmcharlie

Big dawg, you site the mistakes in one direction but not the other, How about Salt, its bad for you, no wait, good,,, or HOrmone replament, its requred, oh wait it causes cancer, or global cooling in the 70.s, global warming now. the list of scince thats bad goes BOTH ways pretty much equaly,,, why? because its not real science its like dr. lou's report... garbage in, garbage out.....

Real world testing is being done on a huge scale.. and unfortunatly the results are in... Mybees are fine, despite being in the most heavily chem treated areas... and CCD here in the midwest, is non existant.....


----------



## BigDawg

gmcharlie said:


> Real world testing is being done on a huge scale.. and unfortunatly the results are in... Mybees are fine, despite being in the most heavily chem treated areas... and CCD here in the midwest, is non existant.....


And THAT Charlie is the problem--we become the defacto lab rats for the pesticide companies, all without our consent. 

I don't know about you, but I don't want my children or my bees to be used as lab rats by the pesticide industry!

Regarding your bees, I'm really glad that so far they seem to be ok. However, if your neighbor has smoked for 20 years and has not yet developed lung cancer, does that constitute proof that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? 

Of course it doesn't.....


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> Regarding your bees, I'm really glad that so far they seem to be ok. However, if your neighbor has smoked for 20 years and has not yet developed lung cancer, does that constitute proof that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?


Come on, ya gotta do better than that! Smoking is for a different forum. The reality is, hundreds of thousands of acres of corn and beans are grown in this state of Illinois and we just aren't hearing of large bee die-offs. Jim Lyon has experienced the same in SD. Both sides need to back off this one and cautiously move in a direction that is levelheaded and methodical towards figuring out the complexities of this issue.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

cerezha said:


> It is sort of custom there at beesource, which you probably missed being new here - for statements such as above, we normally ask the reference(s)  - a link to *particular* article, law etc. or just citation of the original with proper reference. If you feel you could educate me, than, please, provide sources to support your statements. I would appreciate if you pointed to particular laws etc with reference numbers etc. Many than ks for cooperation  I love education!


Here is a link anyone could find in about one minute that lists what the law says and where to find specific EPA regulations:

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lfra.html

Notice this is a real citation.

By the way, the DuPont product was not banned because they failed to do any required testing. In fact DuPont had already pulled the product from the market before the EPA took any action. It was a lawn treatment herbicide that happened to kill some trees. Some idiots at DuPont failed to do non required testing that any sensible scientist would do. I am sure the guilty parties no longer work at DuPont. The EPA action was a mere formality after the fact to get the registration off the books so they did not waste their resources monitoring a dead product. If EPA did not do this they would waste taxpayers money every year on reviews.

As Dawg has so nicely explained I do not have CCD as I have no pesticide exposure in spite of the fact that I and neighbors under my conditions all see sudden die offs or dramatic declines in bee populations of strong colonies in both winter and summer. We see these declines without a lot of dead bees in front of the hive or in the hive. And if you catch it before all are dead you generally find a live queen. But obviously this is an entirely different problem and I hope it does not strike the rest of you. It is discouraging to see a double deep with three or four supers packed with bees go to a partial frame or two frames in a month in summer or over the winter. Thus I will not further waste my time on this CCD topic. Why should I waste my time? I do not have CCD.

I notice a funny thing. All the anti GMO and anti pesticide types are under pseudonyms. I wonder what it is they fear? The truth perhaps? When I sent reports to EPA I had to sign my real name to a statement that the data in the report was generated in compliance with all good laboratory practices on risk of jail sentences if I were not telling the truth. I feel anyone who wishes to say I lied should sign a real name or shut up. I have been project manager for an Ag Chem development product. I killed that product due to adverse findings after we had spent over $20 million on development studies. What actual experience do the nay sayers have? One of them thinks crop rotation is the solution! Incredible! Tell that to the guy growing rhubarb or apples or any of hundreds of other crops that are perennials. Did you know there is work underway to generate a perennial corn? Or tell that to the guy who has late blight on his crop. It is called late blight for a reason. It takes a while each year for the spores to get here from central America. The truth is the only sustainable crop rotation system that does not require large external inputs of nutrients, fuels and labor compared to modern Ag is slash and burn. Are we going to feed the worlds population farming land one year out of 25? Some other pseudonym claims 2,4 D killed his bees when "A honey bee acute toxicity study indicated that 2,4-D is practically non-toxic to the honey bee" according to the EPA. Citation:

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm

Obviously this guy has CCD. To bad he did not take one minute to look up facts. But I suppose facts do not count.

Has the Chem industry made mistakes? Sure they have. The tiny amount of 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dioxin in agent orange was one of them. That tiny trace does not mean the active ingredients were a problem. Another mistake was PCBs. DDT was not a mistake. Every accusation that lead to its ban has been proven false. It should rightfully be on the market today, except no one is going to spend about $50 million or so on lab testing to get a new registration as it is not going to be profitable. Instead we murder millions of people each year by malaria as there is no reasonable substitute for DDT in malaria control.

Bottom line is I trust the US EPA (which did not exist when agent orange and PCBs were commercialized) a lot more than I trust the opinion of a bunch of people who know nothing at all about Ag or pesticide regulation and who hide behind pseudonyms.

Good bye.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> Approved firs by EPA and than suspended:
> year 2011 *EPA Issues Stop Sale Order to DuPont on Sale and Distribution of Imprelis Herbicide *


Imprelis herbicide was a rare isolated case of unintended ornamental tree injury that did not involve injury to humans or pollinators and was quickly discovered and resolved http://imprelis-facts.com/faqs/ 



cerezha said:


> Also: *Product registration suspensions under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B). *


Those products were not suspended because they caused unintended consequences to humans, pollinators or the environment. They were suspended because the particular registrants in question did not wish (typically due to low sales volume) to provide the EPA with information needed to meet the more costly new re-registration requirments. Some other registrants that had products with the same active ingredients DID provide the EPA with the requested information and so those active ingredients are still being used today (e.g. pyrethrin insecticides, DDVP insecticide, 2,4-D herbicide, etc.are still widely used today)


----------



## gmcharlie

Big dawg, While I understand your point you guys (your not the only one by any stretch) Fail to understand what your talking about. Seed coatings by and large represent the next step in tech. What the REPLACE is the real key. they replace a ton of post emergence spraying. allow better yields, and control a large number of pest. 
You guys seem to think this stuff just started... Hardly... this is just a new revalation, and unfortunatly some people have to much time on their hands... so they sit around and proselytize on topics they really don't understand or have any knowledge of. You won't hear a peep out of me on spotted owls... no clue... not my area.... Seed coatings.... Well they are around me in levels you can't even comprehend. and most years. crop dusting is a dead art.... coup sprayers can be bought cheap, and a lot of real problem pest are at least for the moment under control all done with guys with more brains and heart on the subject than than you can appreciate.
Instead we want to listen to a bunch of Hack scientist who run goofy experiments and are funded by dubious sources. and use that same claim for the guys at Bayer, and Monsanto etc...... you guys want to claim Superior ground, using the same argument you use to discredit Bayer and Monsanto you would see you don't have a claim.

I worked in AG many years on equipment.... and with seed suppliers... I know the way they work and think... and yes there are probably a few bad apples, but as a whole, I would and do trust them with the worlds food supply these guys feed there families also with this stuff......is seed coating were killing off bees in any serious numbers the results would be obvious and products would be pulled........


----------



## BigDawg

It's an example of drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty assumptions and faulty logic.

There's no doubt that the CCD syndrome is real and unlike anything bees have seen before in terms of scale and frequency. There's also no doubt that (so far) it is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives. But HIV effects far less than 1% of the population, and yet obviously it is still deemed to be a serious health problem. Why do some get HIV and other's do not? We don't know for sure, but clearly more research is needed.

Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not? We simply don't know yet. But to say that "my hives are in an intensive agriculture area and I'm not experiencing CCD, therefore Ag chemicals are not causing CCD" is a statement based upon faulty logic and it is therefore erroneous.



Barry said:


> Come on, ya gotta do better than that! Smoking is for a different forum. The reality is, hundreds of thousands of acres of corn and beans are grown in this state of Illinois and we just aren't hearing of large bee die-offs. Jim Lyon has experienced the same in SD. Both sides need to back off this one and cautiously move in a direction that is levelheaded and methodical towards figuring out the complexities of this issue.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I agree with gmcharlie. seed treatments are a great leap forward from arial spraying. Not only the reduced environmental contamination, but also the ensuring the accurate dosage of the pesticide is applied.


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> There's no doubt that the CCD syndrome is real and unlike anything bees have seen before in terms of scale and frequency.


CCD is a new term, so you won't find it in the history books. However, it is documented that there have been large bee die-offs in the past, numerous times.



> There's also no doubt that (so far) it is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives.


CCD



> But HIV effects far less than 1% of the population, and yet obviously it is still deemed to be a serious health problem.


We were going somewhere until you got anthropomorphic on me. Humans vs. insects, doesn't work.



> Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not?


Great question! That IS the question. What is your answer to it?



> to say that "my hives are in an intensive agriculture area and I'm not experiencing CCD, therefore Ag chemicals are not causing CCD"


Most are not saying this, certainly not me. You and others are saying because it is happening to some, therefore, we should treat everyone the same way. Ban this or that across the board. Demonize this or that company.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> There's also no doubt that (so far) it [CCD] is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives. Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not? We simply don't know yet.


CCD is effecting a small percentage of hives in low neonic usage regions as well as high usage regions. If neonics contributed significantly to the incidence and severity of CCD then it should be more prominent in high usage areas like Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas. But it's not. Therefore banning neonic seed treatments cannot reasonably expected to improve annual colony loss statistics.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Dog,
why compare the CCD and neonics with PCBs and HIV? Others supporting their opinions on this topic with facts and evidence on CCD and neonics.



BigDawg said:


> It's an example of drawing a false conclusion based upon faulty assumptions and faulty logic.
> 
> There's no doubt that the CCD syndrome is real and unlike anything bees have seen before in terms of scale and frequency. There's also no doubt that (so far) it is effecting a small percentage of hives--perhaps less than 1% of hives. But HIV effects far less than 1% of the population, and yet obviously it is still deemed to be a serious health problem. Why do some get HIV and other's do not? We don't know for sure, but clearly more research is needed.
> 
> Why do some hives in agricultural areas suffer from CCD and others do not? We simply don't know yet. But to say that "my hives are in an intensive agriculture area and I'm not experiencing CCD, therefore Ag chemicals are not causing CCD" is a statement based upon faulty logic and it is therefore erroneous.


----------



## BigDawg

No, a lot of people are simply voicing their OPINIONS and supposition--not facts.

You can use any example you want, HIV, smoking, whatever. It's basic scientific theory--trying to determine causality.

Several people here have said "hey, there's tons of corn fields around my hives and I don't get CCD, so all the arm-waving about neonics and CCD is wrong!"

Obviously, that's faulty logic, these folks are making a false assumption about causality. It's really pretty simple. It's basic scientific theory.

"As an observation of a correlation does not imply causation, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning from particular observations in order to strengthen (through observed reproducibility) or disprove hypotheses about causal relationships." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality#Science


Saying that "my bees are in an intensive ag area don't have CCD, therefore Ag chems don't cause CCD" is like saying that "my sister ate lots of carrots and got cancer, therefore carrots cause cancer." It's a false correlation based upon assumptions--not facts.

I agree that in general systemic pesticides CAN be better than previous methods like crop-dusting. But shouldn't we find out what the real causal factors of CCD are? There is crystal clear research showing negative impacts to pollinators from neonics--even at sub-lethal levels. Perhaps the structure of the neonics can be altered to be less harmful to non-target species like pollinators. Perhaps the dosage can be lowered to be less harmful to pollinators--when one kernel of systemic-treated corn seed has enough poison to kill 100,000 bees, one does have to wonder about the levels needed to treat the pests and ask questions about an over-reliance upon pesticides and an over-application of pesticides. While "stacking" i.e. providing treatment for multiple pests at the same time is good for companies who sell pesticides, maybe we shouldn't be unnecessarily using poisons that we don't need to use ....Maybe, geneticists can develop systemics that will only impact the target species--certainly the RNA interference products are headed in that direction.

Clearly, more research should have been conducted before neonics were put on the market. Clearly, we need 3rd party verification of the data to prevent conflicts of interest. Clearly, there are more questions than answers right now about neonics and the unintended consequences of their use.



BayHighlandBees said:


> Dog,
> why compare the CCD and neonics with PCBs and HIV? Others supporting their opinions on this topic with facts and evidence on CCD and neonics.


----------



## BigDawg

You are making faulty assumptions and using those to make a case for causality--a case that favors the pesticide industry. 

Most people who smoke, don't get lung cancer, some people who don't smoke do get lung cancer. Most people who work around asbestos don't get lung cancer, some people who don't work around asbestos do get lung cancer. That doesn't in any way alter the fact that smoking and asbestos cause lung cancer. It's basic scientific theory on causality.......more often than not what we think we know by observation, isn't actually born out by the facts once sufficient research is conducted.

The simple truth is we don't yet know what, if any role that neonics is playing in CCD. However, there is a mounting pile of evidence to suggest that neonics DO have a negative impact upon pollinators. 



BlueDiamond said:


> CCD is effecting a small percentage of hives in low neonic usage regions as well as high usage regions. If neonics contributed significantly to the incidence and severity of CCD then it should be more prominent in high usage areas like Illinois, Minnesota and the Dakotas. But it's not. Therefore banning neonic seed treatments cannot reasonably expected to improve annual colony loss statistics.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> You are making faulty assumptions and using those to make a case for causality


 Please specify the "faulty assumptions".



BigDawg said:


> The simple truth is we don't yet know what, if any role that neonics is playing in CCD.


 We know the prevalence of CCD and the magnitude of winter colony losses do not correspond well with the geographic footprint of neonic usage; therefore it's highly unlikely that neonics play a substantial role in CCD or winter colony losses and so banning them is very unlikely to improve CCD incidence or winter colony loss statistics. 



BigDawg said:


> there is a mounting pile of evidence to suggest that neonics DO have a negative impact upon pollinators.


 Yes, investigators who have artificially exposed captively held bees have found some negative impacts. But investigators who have studied free living bees in heavy neonic usage areas have not. Therefore banning neonics is very unlikely to improve CCD incidence or winter colony loss statistics.



BigDawg said:


> Clearly, more research should have been conducted before neonics were put on the market. Clearly, we need 3rd party verification of the data to prevent conflicts of interest. Clearly, there are more questions than answers right now about neonics and the unintended consequences of their use


3rd party verification of what data? The studies that showed free living bees in heavy neonic usage areas did not suffer negative impacts? If so, what are the impact standards neonics must meet before they are allowed on the market? You and the pollinator advocacy groups never seem to specify your impact standards, but instead make generalized, vaguely defined statements like: "until proven not to negatively impact upon pollinators" or "until proven safe for pollinators".


----------



## BigDawg

From today's American Bee Journal:

PENSACOLA, Fla. - Forthcoming research in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry analyzes the physiological effects of three separate pesticides on honey bee (Apis mellifera). *An international research team* - Drs. Stephan Caravalho, Luc Belzunces and colleagues from Universidade Federal de Lavras in Brazil and Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique in France - *conclude that the absence of mortality does not always indicate fuctional integrity.*

*Deltamethrin, fipronil and spinosad,* widely used pesticides in agriculture and home pest control, were applied to healthy honey bees and proved toxic to some degree irrespective of dosage. *At sublethal doses, the pesticide modulated key enzymes that regulate physiological processes, cognitive capacities and immune responses, such as homing flight, associative learning, foraging behavior and brood development. Sensitivity to these insecticides and foraging range (as far as 1.5 to 3 km) make A. mellifera an optimal candidate for monitoring the environmental impacts of pesticides.*


----------



## hedges

What gets me about this argument isn't than one side is right or wrong. It's a debate because we don't know what's causing CCD, and because we don't know the impact that various pesticides (which are under-regulated) have on bees. What gets me is that arguments like 

"Seed coatings by and large represent the next step in tech. What the REPLACE is the real key. they replace a ton of post emergence spraying. allow better yields, and control a large number of pest. " 

and 

"seed treatments are a great leap forward from ariel spraying." 

become the underlying theme for an uncompromising rejectionist attitude towards scrutiny of neonics. As though, because it's good for agriculture, the idea that there might be some other, unintended consequence is absurd and illogical.

The point where most things in our society have been vetted, historically, has been when people in the community are impacted and care about the consequences, and either increase scrutiny themselves, or cause some more sophisticated agency to care about it for them. Water contamination, greater ecological damage, overfishing, etc, etc. We have certainly come a long way since the slaughterhouses of Sinclair's Jungle, but the lesson from those moments of progress and accountability should be the value in demanding it - and viewing the world with a calm, objective skepticism. Not simply accepting some corporate broad-stroke message that 'it's all good.'


----------



## Daniel Y

How about the replacement for neonics is nothing?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> ... were applied to healthy honey bees and proved toxic to some degree irrespective of dosage.


Yawn...yet another unrealistic bee poisoning by researcher study that will not answer key questions like: 1) What pathogen(s) cause CCD? 2) Why do many beekeepers in heavy neonic usage areas have little CCD and low winter losses? Why do many beekeepers in low neonic usage areas have considerable CCD and high winter losses?


----------



## hedges

BlueDiamond said:


> Yawn...yet another unrealistic bee poisoning by researcher study that will not answer key questions like: 1) What pathogen(s) cause CCD? 2) Why do many beekeepers in heavy neonic usage areas have little CCD and low winter losses? Why do many beekeepers in low neonic usage areas have considerable CCD and high winter losses?


Good to see you keeping an open mind. Yawn, indeed.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof


----------



## gmcharlie

hedges said:


> Good to see you keeping an open mind. Yawn, indeed.
> 
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof


An open mind?? no right or wrong??? a few do gooders want to shut down farming as we know it because they think they have the answer. and yet nothing they say is even close to logical. any 6th grader can understand that point. Guys like blue and myself, are asking for something simple.... sit down and shut up until you have something that makes a lick of sense... nothing more.
AS we all know, if you lock bees up and feed them poisen you can get someone to fund your studies........ but thats not science or real world....

One side is attempting to control the world... Literaly... they have managed to shut down the EU... and they want to do it here also... armed with nothing more than a placard and great slogan....... lets give it 3 years.. if the EU is suddenly healed.. then so be it... But I am guessing you will hear things like "its not long enough" ect..... it goes on and on......WLC keeps commenting on the life of neonics in soil.. but conviently leaves out the fact that the soil he referes to happens to be the type in the are with the most and healthyest bees in the country....

What Some of here want is a voice of reality. Big dawg makes teh argument about since I don't have CCD I have blinders...... Hes so far off its not funny.... The MIDWEST does not have CCD.... millions of hives and doing fine... we have one story about some losses in IL... state inspectors will tell you it was FB as they tested in beltsville... the list goes on...


----------



## pharmbee

As a new beekeeper with a farming background this whole topic is fascinating. I guess I come down in the middle. I haven't seen anyone refute high neonics vs low ccd and the reverse. Obviously this seems like at least a serious wound if not a fatal blow to the anti neonic crowd. But at the same time I find it personally impossible to believe that big agrochem companies and the revolving door of the oversight agencies are really looking out for bees or people in general. I guess people have much more faith in the system than I do.


----------



## BlueDiamond

pharmbee said:


> I haven't seen anyone refute high neonics vs low ccd and the reverse. Obviously this seems like at least a serious wound if not a fatal blow to the anti neonic crowd.


Another new wound to the anti-neonic crowd: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=BC70C83CBDE883F9E892EA6BE97724FF.d03t04

Abstract Background
Neonicotinoid insecticides have been the target of much scrutiny as possible causes of recent declines observed in pollinator populations. Although neonicotinoids have been implicated in honey bee pesticide incidents, there has been little examination of incident report data. Here we summarize honey bee incident report data obtained from the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Results
In Canada, there were very few honey bee incidents reported 2007-2011 and data were not collected prior to 2007. In 2012, a significant number of incidents were reported in the province of Ontario, where exposure to neonicotinoid dust during planting of corn was suspected to have caused the incident in up to 70% of cases. Most of these incidents were classified as “minor” by PMRA, and only six cases were considered “moderate” or “major”. In that same year, there were over three times as many moderate or major incidents due to older non-neonicotinoid pesticides, involving numbers of hives or bees far greater than those suspected to be due to neonicotinoid poisoning.

Conclusions
These data emphasize that, while exposure of honey bees to neonicotinoid-contaminated dust during corn planting needs to be mitigated, other pesticides also pose a risk.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> Another new wound to the anti-neonic crowd: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=BC70C83CBDE883F9E892EA6BE97724FF.d03t04
> ...


 Oh, yes, you still do your business. The coauthor of the article you cited is ... guess who?

David Drexler
Agrology Consultant
Calgary, Canada Area | Farming 
Current:
President at Researchman Consulting Inc. 
Past:
Director, Development and Licensing at *Bayer CropScience * August 2006 – December 2011
Marketing Manager at Aventis CropScience
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/vie...13632,VSRPtargetId:128938953,VSRPcmpt:primary

Researchman Consulting Inc looks like bogus to me - it has only street address for Drexler's trash container, that's it, take a look:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=&laye...=UvHwUc_JMsm2igLruICYCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQxB0wAA


----------



## gmcharlie

cerezha said:


> Oh, yes, you still do your business. The coauthor of the article you cited is ... guess who?
> 
> David Drexler
> Agrology Consultant
> Calgary, Canada Area | Farming
> Current:
> President at Researchman Consulting Inc.
> Past:
> Director, Development and Licensing at *Bayer CropScience * August 2006 – December 2011
> Marketing Manager at Aventis CropScience
> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/vie...13632,VSRPtargetId:128938953,VSRPcmpt:primary
> 
> Researchman Consulting Inc looks like bogus to me - it has only street address for Drexler's trash container, that's it, take a look:
> https://www.google.com/maps?q=&laye...=UvHwUc_JMsm2igLruICYCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQxB0wAA


Why does it matter who wrote it? facts are facts..... You choose to attack the source instead of the facts,,,,, Constantly. 
reminds me of the old saying for lawyers, "if the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if not, pound the table"


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> reminds me of the old saying for lawyers, "if the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if not, pound the table"

Use your _shoe _for more emphasis!








_Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev at the UN in 1960
_
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1843506_1843505_1843496,00.html​


----------



## BigDawg

Good job Cerezha! With billions of dollars in annual sales on the line, you can bet your sweet patootie that the industry is going to funnel millions of dollars into misinformation and misdirection campaigns in order to maintain the status quo as long as possible. 

Of course it matters a great deal what/who the source of the information is, i.e. the Tobacco Industry "scientists" to this day insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and yet most people are smart enough to understand that they are paid by the tobacco industry to create and maintain a misinformation campaign designed to hide the truth about the harmful effects of their products....


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

BigDawg said:


> Of course it matters a great deal what/who the source of the information is, i.e. the Tobacco Industry "scientists" to this day insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer, and yet most people are smart enough to understand that they are paid by the tobacco industry to create and maintain a misinformation campaign designed to hide the truth about the harmful effects of their products....


Why do you *repeatedly *keep trying to link _tobacco _with _bees _when "most people are smart enough to understand ....."

:ws:

Are you _wearing _both shoes?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

it doesn't seem like the report is full of misinformation and it aligns with my belief that the neonic pesticides while having some impacts on bee colonies (mostly revolving around seed dust) actually are a significant improvement over the non-neonic pesticides. 

So rather than debating a ban on neonics shouldn't we be debating about if farmers should be using more neonic pesticides as a replacement for the organophosphates that they are currently using?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

an interesting article that claims that CCD is caused by Nosema ceranae combined with a synergistic effect from funigicides that weakens a bee's ability to resist Nosema:

http://qz.com/107970/scientists-discover-whats-killing-the-bees-and-its-worse-than-you-thought/


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Use your _shoe _for more emphasis!


 And as we all remember, it worked quite nicely  As for paper - it is important who wrote the article - some people have more credentials than other. In this case, it is even not a "paper" it is sort of interpretation of public data without any statistical analysis etc. I am surprised that it was accepted as a scientific paper. Make me think about reviewing process in that journal. It is also important to disclose any conflict of interest in the paper - apparently, David Drexler did not disclose that he was with Bayer 2006 – 2011. It is unethical in our community


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Why do you *repeatedly *keep trying to link _tobacco _with _bees _...


 It is obvious (to me) - neonicotinoids as well as nicotinoids are basically derivatives of the nicotine. All of them utilize poisonous mechanism of the nicotine.


----------



## Barry

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Why do you *repeatedly *keep trying to link _tobacco _with _bees _when "most people are smart enough to understand ....."


Perhaps BigDawg is an ex smoker?


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> it doesn't seem like the report is full of misinformation ...


 It is not "missinformation", it is "interpretation" without using any scientific tool(s) to prove their interpretation. They claimed at the beginning of the "article" that data was very spotty, many fields were not filled up and approximations were used. They did conclusion, which is not originated from the data... for simple reason - there were not enough data for statistical analysis - only 100 partially reported cases.


----------



## BigDawg

I agree that the article is an important step forward in better understanding how pesticides negatively impact non-target pollinators. However, I do disagree with your assertion that the Quartz article claims that "CCD is caused by Nosema ceranae combined with a synergistic effect from funigicides that weakens a bee's ability to resist Nosema."

From the Quartz article:

"The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying though they do not identify the specific cause of CCD, where an entire beehive dies at once."

And nowhere in the original paper did the authors suggest that Nosema is the cause of CCD.


----------



## BigDawg

Barry said:


> Perhaps BigDawg is an ex smoker?



Lol, nope--I'm a pack a day smoker: tobacco industry scientists have assured me that their product is safe!  And they wouldn't lie to us......would they?


----------



## Barry

cerezha said:


> it is important who wrote the article - some people have more credentials than other.


So in this thread identity matters, but in this thread, identity doesn't matter! :scratch: I'm confused!!!

_“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.”_ - Dr. Seuss


----------



## BayHighlandBees

cerezha said:


> It is obvious (to me) - neonicotinoids as well as nicotinoids are basically derivatives of the nicotine. All of them utilize poisonous mechanism of the nicotine.


and nicotine is a natural plant defense that evolved to protect against chomping insects.


----------



## sqkcrk

BigDawg said:


> Lol, nope--I'm a pack a day smoker: tobacco industry scientists have assured me that their product is safe!  And they wouldn't lie to us......would they?


I don't know about that, but I know that people lie to themselves all the time.

Those who bring forth the problem have to bring the solution too. What is your solution?


----------



## cerezha

Barry said:


> Perhaps BigDawg is an ex smoker?


 Tobacco is amusing story. This is an example how science finally after so much struggle succeed! It took decades to prove the connection between smoking and lung-cancer. Tobacco companies did everything possible to prevent science from conclusion. After that story, many scientist are very cynical regarding "unbiased" science in the big corporations. Neonics story look very similar to tobacco story... so many analogy ... when people debated tobacco endlessly, people were dying from lung-cancer.


----------



## jeffnmo

So because the tobacco industry at one time denied the health effects of their product therefore all corporations and their employees lie. That said we should believe no one and yet everyone if they have views similar to ours. GOT IT!!!!


----------



## BayHighlandBees

except neonics follow the original purpose of nicotine: to kill bugs

Smoking insecticides into your body was a flawed idea to begin with.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> From the Quartz article: "The findings break new ground on why large numbers of bees are dying"


Actually, as far as I can tell the study just showed some fungicides impaired the bees' ability to fight off Nosema ceranae when the bees were FORCE FED field collected pollen samples containing fungicide.

The ag chemical industry's position has been that force feeding does not demonstrate what effects ag chemicals have in full real life field situations. More importantly the study did not show that Nosema ceranae is more prevalent in areas of the country where fungicides are used heavily. With regard to CCD, some keepers on this forum like gmcharlie and Barry have said there's little to no CCD in Illinois despite the fact that around 60% of the entire landmass of Illinois (if you exclude Chicago) is covered with crops grown from neonic treated seed and despite some foliar applied (crop duster) fungicide applications in the summer.


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> Lol, nope--I'm a pack a day smoker:


Tell me your joking! Really?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

the trick I've heard with Nosema is that its hard to detect. You can't detect it by looking for brown spots at your hive entrance. It requires examining the contents of a bee's intestines with a 400x microscope.

I think the article is poorly written. I can't see that the author really understands beekeeping to properly digest the findings of the study. Is it plausible that ingesting a fungicide could impair a bees bowel system enough to make an existing pest become a real problem? That's the 24k question here. It seems plausible to me, but I think there would need to be further study on the matter.


----------



## cerezha

Barry said:


> So in this thread identity matters, but in this thread, identity doesn't matter! :scratch: I'm confused!!!


 I am not sure what you mean? If somebody publish a sci. article with name on it- it is public. The entire purpose of the published articles is to initiate a discussion, share the knowledge, propose new theory etc. It is all willingly made public. If somebody screw up - well, it is public! Non-disclosure of the conflict of interest is a big "crime" in scientific community (I believe in business too). A real scientist simply would not take such challenge, because it effectively destroys his/her career. In our professional social networks we are using real names, but those places operate with respect to human individuality and personal insults are not possible or person would be immediately removed from the network. Public networks are rough - it explains why many people prefer to use nicknames - it is so easy to insult when feel, you are safe under the umbrella of your nickname. Similarly, to people who was insulted - they do not want everyone know how they are bullied publicly  It is all about decency and culture (if any) of communication. It seems to me, public networks loose this culture of respectful communication.


----------



## cerezha

jeffnmo said:


> ... That said we should believe no one and yet everyone if they have views similar to ours. GOT IT!!!!


 Tobacco companies, in my opinion, committed the crime and never were punished accordingly. The crime was - systematic purposely misrepresentation of the effects of tobacco smoke on human health. By intentionally doing that, yes, they lost credentials. It is up to every individual to decide in what to believe. Nobody limit you. Now, those tobacco "scientists" are still alive (not punished) and possible do "research" in another place - would you believe them?


----------



## BigDawg

BayHighlandBees said:


> I think the article is poorly written. I can't see that the author really understands beekeeping to properly digest the findings of the study. Is it plausible that ingesting a fungicide could impair a bees bowel system enough to make an existing pest become a real problem? That's the 24k question here. It seems plausible to me, but I think there would need to be further study on the matter.


The study's primary author, Jeffrey Pettis, has a PhD in Entomology and is currently the head scientist of the US Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory, so, I'm hoping he understands beekeeping pretty well.....

I think the most important questions raised by the study are:

*1. "Thus published LD50 values (lethal dosage levels) may not accurately indicate pesticide toxicity inside a hive containing large numbers of pesticides." 
2. "Research looking at additive and synergistic effects between multiple pesticides is clearly needed."
3. "Third, pesticides can have sub-lethal effects on development, reproduction, learning and memory, and foraging behavior." *


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> I think the most important questions raised by the study are:
> 3. "Third, pesticides can have sub-lethal effects on development, reproduction, learning and memory, and foraging behavior." [/B]


I'd insert: "3. pesticides FORCE FED to bees can have sub-lethal effects on development, reproduction, learning and memory, and foraging behavior."

Just because Pettis has a PhD in entomology doesn't mean he ever had an upper division undergraduate or graduate school class in insect pathology (or both). Very few entomologists have had such training, hence the likely reason they tend to avoid in depth studies of insect viral, protozoan and fungal diseases and instead take the easy route to obtaining career enhancing peer reviewed papers: force feeding pesticides to bees and assessing the effects.


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> I'd insert: "3. pesticides FORCE FED to bees can have sub-lethal effects on development, reproduction, learning and memory, and foraging behavior."


Look, I know you're not happy with the study because yet another published paper highlights the unanticipated negative and cumulative impacts of pesticides upon non-target pollinators, but to dismiss the study outright only shows your bias and prejudice. Bees have to eat. They collected pollen from the wild as bees would do, and then fed them the pollen in a lab setting so they could monitor the results. They didn't hold their mouths open and force the pollen down their throats--it was the only food source available and so the bees ate it. The freely fed upon the pollen--they were NOT force fed....

Tell us, what is YOUR recommended method for studying the issue? Where are YOUR published research results?

You keep harping on the need for "real world, in the field studies" as if that's the only way to get valid data relative to the study of CCD. So, given that the neonics/CCD issue has been a major thorn in the side of the pesticide companies for over 7 years, tell me, where are THEIR long-term, real world, in the field studies demonstrating that their products are NOT contributing to CCD? Surely, they've conducted research like that, right? WHERE'S THE DATA?



> Just because Pettis has a PhD in entomology doesn't mean he ever had an upper division undergraduate or graduate school class in insect pathology (or both). Very few entomologists have had such training, hence the likely reason they tend to avoid in depth studies of insect viral, protozoan and fungal diseases and instead take the easy route to obtaining career enhancing peer reviewed papers: force feeding pesticides to bees and assessing the effects.


Ummm, yeah. Well, call me crazy, but when it comes to who has more credibility--an insecticide salesman with a Bachelor's degree, or, the head of the USDA Bee Research Lab with a PhD in Entomology and dozens of published articles in peer-reviewed journals, well, that's an easy one.....

List of publications by Jeffrey Pettis:

*A set of scientific issues being considered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding pollinator risk assessment framework. Reprint Icon - (Government Publication) Jenkins, F., Berenbaum, M., Delcos, K., Fefferman, N., Hunt, G., James, R., Klaine, S., Mcmanaman, J., Ostiguy, N., Pettis, J., Pistorius, J., Potter, T.L., Sandy, M., Schwab, A., Schlenck, D., Tarpey, D. 2012. A set of scientific issues being considered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding pollinator risk assessment framework. Government Publication/Report. Advisory Panel Meeting; 9/11-14/2012. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Pathogen webs in collapsing honey bee colonies - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Cornman, R.S., Tarpy, D., Chen, Y., Jeffries, L., Lopez, D.L., Pettis, J.S., Vanengelsdorp, D., Evans, J.D. 2012. Pathogen webs in collapsing honey bee colonies. PLoS Pathogens. 7(8):e43562.

Effects of long distance transportation on honey bee physiology - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Ahn, K., Xie, X., Pettis, J.S., Huang, Z.Y. 2012. Effects of long distance transportation on honey bee physiology. Psyche. DOI:10.1155/2012/193029.

Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Vanengelsdorp, D., Johnson, J., Divley, G. 2012. Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema. Naturwissenschaften. 99:153–158.

Direct effect of acaricides on pathogen loads and gene expression levels of honey bee Apis mellifera - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Boncristiani, H., Underwood, R., Schwarz, R.S., Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S., Vanengelsdorp, D. 2011. Direct effect of acaricides on pathogen loads and gene expression levels of honey bee Apis mellifera. Journal of Insect Physiology. 58:613-620.

Varroa destructor: research avenues towards sustainable control - (Review Article)
Dietemann, V., Pflugfelder, J., Anderson, D., Charriere, J., Chejanovsky, N., Dainat, B., De Miranda, J., Delaplane, K., Fuchs, S., Gallmann, P., Gauthier, L., Imdorf, A., Koeniger, N., Kralj, J., Meikle, W.G., Pettis, J.S., Rosenkranz, P., Sammataro, D., Smith, D., Yariez, O., Neumann, P. 2011. New avenues in the fight against the honeybee parasite Varroa destructor, a major threat to pollination. Apidologie. 51(1):125-132.

New evidence that Deformed Wing Virus and Black Queen Cell Virus are Multi-host pathogens - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Zhang, X., He, S., Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S., Yin, G., Chen, Y. 2012. New evidence that deformed wing virus and black queen cell virus are multi-host pathogens. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 109(1):156-159.

The Bee Disease Diagnostic Service - 100 Years and Growing at the USDA Bee Research laboratory, Beltsville, MD - (Trade Journal)
Smith Jr, I.B., Pettis, J.S. 2011. The bee disease diagnostic service - 100 years and growing at the USDA Bee Research Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. American Bee Journal. 151(8):767-772.

The presence of Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus infection in Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the U.S. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S. 2011. The presence of chronic bee paralysis virus infection in honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the U.S.. Journal of Apiculture Research. 50:85-86.

Concurrent infestations by Aethina tumida and Varroa destructor alters thermoregulation in Apis mellifera winter clusters - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Schaefer, M., Ritter, W., Pettis, J.S., Hartel, S., Neumann, P. 2011. Concurrent infestations by Aethina tumida and Varroa destructor alters thermoregulation in Apis mellifera winter clusters. Apidologie. 104(3):476-482.

Effective gene silencing of a microsporidian parasite associated with honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony declines - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Paldi, N., Glick, E., Oliva, M., Zilbeberg, Y., Aubin, L., Pettis, J.S., Chen, Y., Evans, J.D. 2010. Effective gene silencing of a microsporidian parasite associated with honey bee (Apis mellifera) colony declines. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 76:5960-5964.

A survey of managed honey bee colony losses in the USA, fall 2009 to winter 2010 - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Vanengelsdorp, D., Hayes, J., Underwood, R.M., Caron, D., Pettis, J.S. 2010. A survey of managed honey bee colony losses in the USA, fall 2009 to winter 2010. Journal of Apicultural Research. 50(1):1-10.

Large-scale field application of RNAi technology reducing Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus Disease in honey bees (Apis mellifera, Hymenoptera; Apidae) - (Peer Reviewed Journal)

Hunter, W.B., Ellis, J.D., vanEnglesdorp, D., Hayes, J., Westervelt, D., Glick, E., Williams, M., Sela, I., Maori, E., Pettis, J., Cox-Foster, D., Paldi, N. 2010. Large-scale field application of RNAi technology reducing Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus disease in honey bees (Apis mellifera, Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS Pathogens. 6(12):e1001160.

Preventing bee mortality with RNA interference - (Abstract Only)
Hunter, W.B., Ellis, J., Vanengelsdrop, D., Hayes, J., Westervelt, D., Williams, M., Sela, I., Maori, E., Pettis, J.S., Cox-Foster, D., Paldi, N. 2010. Preventing bee mortality with RNA interference [abstract]. National Citrus Research Coordination Symposium, June 16-18, 2010, Denver, Colorado.

Organic acids and thymol: unsuitable alternative control of Aethina tumida Murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Buchholz, S., Merkel, K., Spiewok, S., Imdorf, A., Pettis, J.S., Westervelt, D., Ritter, W., Duncan, M., Rosenkranz, P., Spooner-Hart, R., Neumann, P. 2010. Organic acids and thymol: Unsuitable alternative control of aethina tumida murray (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Apidologie. 42:349-363.

Genomic survey of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, a major pest of the honey bee Apis mellifera - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Cornman, R.S., Schatz, M.C., Johnston, S.J., Chen, Y., Pettis, J.S., Hunt, G., Bourgeois, A.L., Elsik, C., Anderson, D., Grozinger, C.M., Evans, J.D. 2010. 

Genomic survey of the ectoparasitic mite Varroa destructor, a major pest of the honey bee Apis mellifera. Biomed Central (BMC) Genomics. 11:602.

Pesticides and honey bee health: High levels of Acaricides and crop protection chemicals in U.S. apiaires - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Mullin, C., Frazier, M., Frazier, J.L., Ashcraft, S., Simonds, R., Vanengelsdorp, D., Pettis, J.S. 2010. 

Pesticides and honey bee health: High levels of Acaricides and crop protection chemicals in U.S. apiaires. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 5(3):e9754.

Chasing your honey: Worldwide diaspora of the small hive beetle, a parasite of honey bee colonies - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Lounsberry, Z.T., Spiewok, S., Pernal, S., Sonstegard, T.S., Hood, M.W., Pettis, J.S., Neumann, P., Evans, J.D. 2010. 

Chasing your honey: Worldwide diaspora of the small hive beetle, a parasite of honey bee colonies. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 104:671-677.

Coordinated responses to honey bee decline in the USA - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Delaplane, K. 2010. Coordinated responses to honey bee decline in the USA. Journal of Economic Entomology. 41:256-263.
Molecular approaches to the Analysis of Virus Replication and Pathogenesis in Honey Bees, Apis mellifera - (Peer Reviewed Journal) Boncristiani Jr, H.F., Diprisco, G., Pettis, J.S., Hamilton, M.C., Chen, Y. 2009. 

Molecular approaches to the Analysis of Virus Replication and Pathogenesis in Honey Bees, Apis mellifera. Journal of Virological Methods. 6:221.

Reviewing colony losses and Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States - (Review Article)
Ellis, J., Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S. 2009. Reviewing colony losses and Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States. Journal of Apicultural Research. 49:134-136.

First analysis of risk factors associated with bee colony collapse disorder by classification and regression trees - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Vanengelsdorp, D., Speybroeck, N., Evans, J.D., Nguyen, B., Mullin, C., Frazier, M., Frazier, J., Cox-Foster, D., Chen, Y., Tarpy, D., Haubruge, E., Pettis, J.S., Saegerman, C. 2010. First analysis of risk factors associated with bee colony collapse disorder by classification and regression trees. Journal of Economic Entomology. 103:1517-1523.

Winter losses of honeybee colonies (Apis mellifera): The role of infestations with Aethina tumida and Varroa destructor - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Schafer, M.O., Ritter, W., Pettis, J.S., Neumann, P. 2009. Winter losses of honeybee colonies (Apis mellifera): The role of infestations with Aethina tumida and Varroa destructor. Journal of Economic Entomology. 103:10-16.

Colony Collapse Disorder: A descriptive studey - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Vanengelsdorp, D., Evans, J.D., Saegerman, C., Mullen, C., Haubruge, E., Nyguyen, K., Frazier, M., Frazier, J., Cox-Foster, D., Chen, Y., Underwood, R., Tarpy, D., Pettis, J.S. 2009. Colony Collapse Disorder: A descriptive study. PLoS One. 4(8):e6481.
Bee cups: Single-use cages for honey bee experiments - (Peer Reviewed Journal)

Evans, J.D., Chen, Y., Diprisco, G., Pettis, J.S., Williams, V.P. 2009. Bee cups: Single-use cages for honey bee experiments. Journal of Apicultural Research. 48(4):300-302.

Honeybee Sacbrood virus infects adult small hive beetles, Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae) - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Eyer, M., Chen, Y., Schaefer, M., Pettis, J.S., Neumann, P. 2009. Honeybee Sacbrood virus infects adult small hive beetles, Aethina tumida (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae). Journal of Apicultural Research. 48(4):296-297.

Asymmetrical Coexistence of Nosema ceranae and N. apis in Honey Bees - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Evans, J.D., Zhou, L., Boncristiani Jr, H.F., Kimura, K., Xiao, T., Litkowski, A.M., Pettis, J.S. 2009. Asymmetrical Coexistence of Nosema ceranae and N. apis in Honey Bees. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 101:204-209.

Entombed pollen: A new condition in honey bee colonies associated with increased risk of colony mortality - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Vanengelsdorp, D., Evans, J.D., Donovall, L., Mullin, C., Frazier, M., Frazier, J., Pettis, J.S., Hayes, J. 2009. Entombed pollen: A new condition in honey bee colonies associated with increased risk of colony mortality. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 101:147-149.

Genomic analyses of the microsporidian Nosema ceranae, an emergent pathogen of honey bees. Reprint Icon - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Cornman, R.S., Chen, Y., Schatz, M., Street, C., Zhao, Y., Desany, B., Egholm, M., Hutchison, S., Pettis, J.S., Lipkin, W.I., Evans, J.D. 2009. Genomic analyses of the microsporidian Nosema ceranae, an emergent pathogen of honey bees. PLoS Pathogens. 5(6):e1000466.

Effects of organic acid treatments on small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, and the associated yeast Kodamaea ohmeri. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Schaefer, M., Ritter, W., Pettis, J.S., Teal, P.E., Neumann, P. 2009. Effects of organic acid treatments on small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, and the associated yeast Kodamaea ohmeri. Journal of Pest Science. 82:283-287.

Morphological, molecular, and phylogenetic characterization of Nosema cerana, a microsporidian parasite isolated from the European honey bee, Apis mellifera - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Evans, J.D., Murphy, C.A., Gutell, R., Lee, J., Zuker, M., Gundersen, D.E., Pettis, J.S. 2009. Morphological, molecular, and phylogenetic characterization of Nosema cerana, a microsporidian parasite isolated from the European honey bee, Apis mellifera. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 56(2):142-147.

Small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, is a potential biological vector of honeybee viruses. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Eyer, M., Chen, Y., Pettis, J.S., Neumann, P. 2008. Small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, is a potential biological vector of honeybee viruses. Apidologie. 40:419-428.

Comparisons of Pollen Substitute Diets for Honey bees: Consumprion Rates by Colonies and Effects on Brood and Adult Populations - (Other)
Hoffman, G.D., Wardell, G., Ahumada-Secura, F., Rinderer, T.E., Danka, R.G., Pettis, J.S. 2008. Comparisons of Pollen Substitute Diets for Honey bees: Consumprion Rates by Colonies and Effects on Brood and Adult Populations. Journal of Apicultural Research 47:265-270.

A simple method for quantitative diagnosis of small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, in the field - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Schafer, M., Pettis, J.S., Ritter, W., Neumann, P. 2008. A simple method for quantitative diagnosis of small hive beetles, Aethina tumida, in the field. Apidologie. 39:564-565.

Virus infections in Brazilian honey bees - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Teixeira, E.W., Chen, Y., Message, D., Pettis, J.S., Evans, J.D. 2008. Virus infections in Brazilian honey bees. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 99:117-119.

Genetic analysis of Israel Acute Paralysis Virus: distinct clusters are circulating into the United States. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Palacios, G., Hui, J., Quan, P., Kalkstein, A.L., Honkavuori, K.S., Bussetti, A.V., Conlan, S., Evans, J.D., Chen, Y., Vanengelsdoorp, D., Efrat, H., Pettis, J.S., Cox-Foster, D.L., Holmes, E.C., Briese, T., Lipkin, I.W. 2008. Genetic analysis of Israel Acute Paralysis Virus: Distinct clusters are circulating into the United States. Journal of Virology. 82:6209-6217.

Reaction Norm Variants for Male Calling Song in Natural Populations of Achroia Grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): towards a Resolution of the Lek Paradox - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Zhou, Y., Kuster, H., Pettis, J.S., Danka, R.G., Gleason, J.M., Greenfield, M.D. 2008. Reaction Norm Variants for Male Calling Song in Natural Populations of Achroia Grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): towards a Resolution of the Lek Paradox. Evolution 1317-1334.

Potential host shift of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) to bumblebee colonies (Bombus impatiens Cresson) - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Neumann, P., Hoffmann, D., Pettis, J.S. 2008. Potential host shift of the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida Murray) to bumblebee colonies (Bombus impatiens Cresson). Insectes Sociaux. 55:153-162.

Multi-class determination and confirmation of antibiotic residues in honey using LC-MS/MS - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Lopez, M., Pettis, J.S., Smith Jr., I.B., Pak-Sin, C. 2008. Multi-class determination and confirmation of antibiotic residues in honey using LC-MS/MS. Journal of Food Chemistry. 56(5):1553-1559.

A metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony collapse disorder - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Cox-Foster, D.L., Conlan, S., Holmes, E.C., Palacios, G., Evans, J.D., Moran, N.A., Quan, P., Briese, T., Hornig, M., Geiser, D.M., Martinson, V., Vanengelsdorp, D., Kalkstein, A.L., Drysdale, A., Hui, J., Zhai, J., Cui, L., Hutchison, S.K., Simons, J., Egholm, M., Pettis, J.S., Lipkin, W. 2007. A metagenomic survey of microbes in honey bee colony collapse disorder. Science. 318:283-287.

Nosema Ceranae is a long present and wide spread microsporidian infection of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in the United States. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Evans, J.D., Smith Jr, I.B., Pettis, J.S. 2007. Nosema Ceranae is a long present and wide spread microsporidian infection of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in the United States. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 92:152-159.

Diagnostic genetic test for the honey bee tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S., Smith Jr, I.B. 2007. Diagnostic genetic test for the honey bee tracheal mite, Acarapis woodi. Journal of Apicultural Research. 46(3):1-5.

A DNA method for screening hive debris for the presence of small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Ward, L., Brown, M., Neumann, P., Wilkins, S., Pettis, J.S., Neil, B. 2007. A dna method for screening hive debris for the presence of small hive beetle (aethina tumida). Apidologie. 38:272-280.

CHANGES AT THE BEE RESEARCH LAB IN BELTSVILLE - (Trade Journal)
Pettis, J.S. 2006. Changes at the bee research lab in beltsville. American Bee Journal. 146(6):477.

SURVIVAL AND FUNCTION OF QUEENS REARED IN BEESWAX CONTAINING COUMAPHOS - (Trade Journal)
Collins, A.M., Pettis, J.S., Wilbanks, R., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2006. Survival and function of queens reared in beeswax containing coumaphos. American Bee Journal. 146(4):341-344.

DETECTING COUMAPHOS RESISTANCE IN VARROA MITES - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Jadczak, T. 2005. Detecting coumaphos resistance in varroa mites. American Bee Journal. 145(12):967-970.

PREVALENCE AND TRANSMISSION ROUTES OF HONEY BEE VIRUSES - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Pettis, J.S., Collins, A.M., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2006. Prevalence and transmission routes of honey bee viruses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 72(1):606-611.

EFFICACY OF TYLOSIN AND LINCOMYCIN IN CONTROLLING AMERICAN FOULBROOD IN HONEY BEE COLONIES - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2005. Efficacy of tylosin and lincomycin in controlling american foulbrood in honey bee colonies. Journal of Apicultural Research. 44(3):106-108

COLONY-LEVEL IMPACTS OF IMMUNE RESPONSIVENESS IN HONEY BEES, APIS MELLIFERA. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S. 2005. Colony-level impacts of immune responsiveness in honeybees, Apis mellifera. Evolution. 59(10):2270-2274.

SCREENING ADDITIONAL ANTIBIOTICS FOR EFFICACY AGAINST AMERICAN FOULBROOD. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Kochansky, J.P., Pettis, J.S. 2005. Screening additional antibiotics for efficacy against american foulbrood. Journal of Apicultural Research. 44(1):24-28.

OBSERVATION ON THE BIOLOGY OF THE HONEY BEE TRACHEAL MITE ACARAPIS WOODI (ACARI: TARSONEMIDAE) USING LOW-TEMPERATURE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Ochoa, R., Pettis, J.S., Erbe, E.F., Wergin, W.P. 2005. Observation on the biology of the honey bee tracheal mite Acarapis woodi (Acari: Tarsonemidae) using low-temperature scanning electron microscopy. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 35:239-249. (#161535: April 1, 2005)

DETECTION OF MULTIPLE VIRUSES IN QUEENS OF THE HONEY BEE, APIS MELLIFERA L. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Pettis, J.S., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2004. Detection of multiple viruses in queens of the honey bee, apis mellifera l. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 90:118-121.

PERFORMANCE OF HONEY BEE APIS MELLIFERA L., QUEENS REARED IN BEESWAX CELLS IMPREGNATED WITH COUMAPHOS - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Collins, A.M., Pettis, J.S., Wilbanks, R., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2004. Performance of honey bee apis mellifera l., queens reared in beeswax cells impregnated with coumaphos. Journal of Apicultural Research. 43(3):128-134.
RESIDUE LEVELS IN HONEY AFTER COLONY TREATMENT WITH THE ANTIBIOTIC TYLOSIN - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Feldlaufer, M.F., Pettis, J.S., Kochansky, J.P., Kramer, M.H. 2004. Residue levels in honey after colony treatment with the antibiotic tylosin. American Bee Journal. 144:143-145.

MOLECULAR EVIDENCE FOR TRANSMISSION OF KASHMIR BEE VIRUS IN HONEY BEE COLONIES BY ECTOPARASITIC MITE, VARROA DESTRUCTOR - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Pettis, J.S., Evans, J.D., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2004. Molecular evidence for transmission of kashmir bee virus in honey bee colonies by ectoparasitic mite, varroa destructor. Apidologie. 35(4):441-448.

DETECTION OF DEFORMED WING VIRUS INFECTION IN HONEY BEES APIS MELLIFERA L. IN THE UNITED STATES - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Chen, Y., Smith, Jr., I.B., Collins, A.M., Pettis, J.S., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2004. Detection of deformed wing virus infection in honey bees Apis mellifera L. in the United States. American Bee Journal. 144(7):557-559.

EFFECTS OF COUMAPHOS ON QUEEN REARING IN THE HONEY BEE, APIS MELLIFERA L. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Collins, A.M., Wilbanks, R., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2004. Effects of coumaphos on queen rearing in the honey bee, apis mellifera l. Apidologie. 35:605-610

A SCIENTIFIC NOTE ON VARROA DESTRUCTOR RESISTANCE TO COUMAPHOS IN THE UNITED STATES. - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S. 2003. A scientific note on varroa destructor resistance to coumaphos in the united states.. Apidologie. 2003 35:91-92.

INTERCEPTION OF A LIVE VARROA MITE ON IMPORTED CUT FLOWERS IN THE UNITED STATES - (Research Notes)
Pettis, J.S., Ochoa, R., Orr, J. 2003. Interception of a live varroa mite on imported cut flowers in the united states. International Journal of Acarology. 29:291-292

LARVAL HONEY BEE MORTALITY FOLLOWING TOPICAL APPLICATION OF ANTIBIOTICS AND DUSTS - (Peer Reviewed Journal)
Pettis, J.S., Kochansky, J.P., Feldlaufer, M.F. 2002. Larval honey bee mortality following topical application of antibiotics and dusts. Journal of Economic Entomology. 97(2):171-176.

TRACKING AN INVASIVE HONEY BEE PEST: MITOCHONDRIAL DNA VARIATION IN SMALL HIVE BEETLES FROM NORTH AMERICA - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (23-Jul-02)

APIS MELLIFERA QUEEN REPLACEMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF CHEMICAL "STRESS". - (Abstract Only) - (25-Jun-02)

USE OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS IN THE CONTROL OF SMALL HIVE BEETLE LARVAE AND RECOVERY OF TREATED COMBS - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (12-Apr-02)
EVIDENCE OF RESISTANCE TO COUMAPHOS BY VARROA MITES IN THE U.S. - (Trade Journal) - (20-Nov-01)

RESISTANCE MECHANISM OF VARROA JACOBSONI TO FLUVALINATE ALTERED SODIUM CHANNEL? - (Proceedings) - (04-Sep-01)

LINCOMYCIN HYDROCHLORIDE FOR THE CONTROL OF AMERICAN FOULBROOD DISEASE OF HONEY BEES - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (30-Jul-01)

EFFECT OF VARROA INFESTATION ON SEMEN QUALITY - (Trade Journal) - (04-Jun-01)

USE OF MICROSATELLITE DNA LOCI TO INFER GENETIC STRUCTURE IN THE HONEY BEE PARASITIC MITE VARROA DESTRUCTOR - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (07-Apr-01)

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE ANTIBIOTICS AGAINST OXYTETRACYCLINE-SUSCEPTIBLE AND -RESISTANT AMERICAN FOULBROOD - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (15-Feb-01)

SCREENING ANTIBIOTICS AGAINST RESISTANT AND SUSCEPTIBLE AMERICAN FOULBROOD - (Abstract Only) - (15-Feb-01)

COMPARISON OF THE DIETARY AND TISSUE STEROLS OF THE SMALL HIVE BEETLE AETHINA TUMIDA (COLEOPTERA:NITIDULIDAE) - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (01-Sep-00)

AIRING OUT SMALL HIVE BEETLE PROBLEMS IN THE HONEY HOUSE - (Popular Publication) - (30-May-00)

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA RELATIONSHIPS IN AN EMERGENT PEST: SMALL HIVE BEETLES, AETHINA TUMIDA (COLEOPTERA:NITIDULIDAE), FROM THE UNITED STATES AND AFRICA. - (Peer Reviewed Journal) Evans, J.D., Pettis, J.S., Shimanuki, H. 2000. Mitochondrial dna relationships in an emergent pest: small hive beetles, aethina tumida (coleoptera:nitidulidae), from the united states and africa. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 9:415-520.

A HIVE MODIFICATION TO REDUCE VARROA POPULATIONS. - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (01-Jun-99)

NON-CHEMICAL CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR VARROA - (Abstract Only) - (10-Mar-99)

A FIELD ASSAY TO DETECT FLUVALINATE RESISTANCE IN VARROA MITES. - (Peer Reviewed Journal) - (01-Jul-98)
BEES (CHAPTER 14) - (Book / Chapter) - (22-May-98)

ARS News Articles
item	Survey Reports Latest Honey Bee Losses
item	Bee Parasite's Genome Sequenced
item	Higher Pathogen Loads Noted in CCD Bee Colonies
item	Still Seeking a Cause of Colony Collapse Disorder
item	Queen Bees Can Pass Virus to Offspring
item	New Test Detects Pesticide-Resistant Bee Mites
item	Lab Consortium Honors ARS Tech Transfer
item	Virus Link to Vanishing Bees
item	Improving Honey Bee Health
item	Survey Reports Latest Honey Bee Losses
item	USDA/AIA Survey Reports 2010/2011 Winter Honey Bee Losses
item	Survey Reports Fewer Winter Honey Bee Losses
item	Bees Exposed to Fungicide More Vulnerable to Nosema Parasite
item	Bees Exposed to Fungicide More Vulnerable to Nosema Parasite*


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> I'd insert: "3. pesticides FORCE FED to bees can have sub-lethal effects on development, reproduction, learning and memory, and foraging behavior."...


 You just have no idea how science is produced - any potential drug is *FORCE FED* to experimental animal, mouse, rat etc. to see the effect (if any). Any pharmaceutical company *FORCE FED* millions of experimental animals before drug is available to *FORCE FEED* humans. 

*obtaining career enhancing peer reviewed papers* is very honorable! What is dishonorable is to trash somebody's work without any credentials. If you disagree with paper - you must write a letter to the editor - if your complains are reasonable, your comment will be published. This is how civilized people would do. In fact, I am going to write the letter to the editor of the paper you cited above with complains that author, 
David Drexler did not disclose the obvious conflict of the interest.


----------



## Daniel Y

BayHighlandBees said:


> and nicotine is a natural plant defense that evolved to protect against chomping insects.


One alternative use for tobacco is to make a soup out of it or really more of a tea and use that mixture as an insecticide. I repels the insects rather than kill them. Not many insects will eat tobacco. It is a member of the nightshade family along with the Tomato. Like the Tomato the Horned Tomato worm (Larva of the Sphinx Moth) is about the biggest pest. There are some molds and a disease or tow that effect it. Aphids will also be found on it but I never see them to much. Bees will not touch it although they like to set on the dark leaves early in the morning to get warm. There is a wasp here that seems determined to get to the seed pods and have even eaten through cloth to get to them.

The claim is that tobacco repels insects so effectively solely because of the nicotine.

One though I have. if nicotine naturally repels honey bees. Why can't they make an insecticide that actually repels bees?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Bees have to eat. They collected pollen from the wild as bees would do, and then fed them the pollen in a lab setting so they could monitor the results. They didn't hold their mouths open and force the pollen down their throats--it was the only food source available and so the bees ate it. The freely fed upon the pollen--they were NOT force fed...


The bees in the study were not outside in a real world crop / orchard field environment to feed on the pollen. So the study did not demonstrate that bee colonies situated in ag areas where fungicides are used have an impaired ability to fight off Nosema ceranae. As Bayer's Dr. Julian Little has said: "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation"


----------



## pfunkmort

To be fair, I don't know the person with the name tag "BlueDiamond", so I could very well be wrong.

But let me venture a guess that he's some how affiliated with the Blue Diamond almond growers cooperative, based out of Sacramento, California which does over 700 million dollars worth of business a year. Looking lean and hard at their bee contracts, he's probably doing an over/under on what would happen to his business if suddenly he couldn't use neonics on his crops and had to switch back to a dirtier pesticide like an organophosphate. He's also probably wondering what impact a smear campaign on neonics (which he uses), or having to switch to organophosphates because of some ban, would have on his costs for already pricey pollination contracts as commercial beekeepers become warier of the losses they could incur from pollinating his dirty crops, driving up his overall costs.

His overall view of bees and beekeepers probably reduces to something along the lines of the going rate for manure, or irrigation, or some other necessary operating cost.

So he comes here, and every single one of his posts tries to mitigate an otherwise moderate, concerned conversation on a bee forum about one of the possible causes or influences surrounding colony collapse disorder.

To be fair, his concerns are valid in the context of his business and the impact is one which should be kept squarely on screen when talking about what the causes of CCD are, and what the impacts of action look like. But, for my money, I'm guessing his presence here is nothing more than a not-so-subtle attempt at lobbying a business position, and not, in its current form, relevant to an overarching, objective conversation on neonics, bees, or the science of studying CCD.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> You just have no idea how science is produced - any potential drug is *FORCE FED* to experimental animal, mouse, rat etc. to see the effect (if any). Any pharmaceutical company *FORCE FED* millions of experimental animals before drug is available to *FORCE FEED* humans.


When a pesticide manufacturer considers introducing a new insecticide to the marketplace it conducts numerous field trials to see if the chemical kills as well in real world field situations (vs existing competitive products) as it does in forced exposure laboratory settings. They know from decades of experience that just because the forced exposure lab studies show the insecticide kills well, in the real world it may not. Ditto in regard to sublethal effects; i.e. just because these effects can be detected in forced exposure lab settings, doesn't mean they will be in a real life full field situations.


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond is a pesticide salesman and bug exterminator.



pfunkmort said:


> To be fair, I don't know the person with the name tag "BlueDiamond", so I could very well be wrong.
> 
> But let me venture a guess that he's some how affiliated with the Blue Diamond almond growers cooperative, based out of Sacramento, California which does over 700 million dollars worth of business a year. Looking lean and hard at their bee contracts, he's probably doing an over/under on what would happen to his business if suddenly he couldn't use neonics on his crops and had to switch back to a dirtier pesticide like an organophosphate. He's also probably wondering what impact a smear campaign on neonics (which he uses), or having to switch to organophosphates because of some ban, would have on his costs for already pricey pollination contracts as commercial beekeepers become warier of the losses they could incur from pollinating his dirty crops, driving up his overall costs.
> 
> His overall view of bees and beekeepers probably reduces to something along the lines of the going rate for manure, or irrigation, or some other necessary operating cost.
> 
> So he comes here, and every single one of his posts tries to mitigate an otherwise moderate, concerned conversation on a bee forum about one of the possible causes or influences surrounding colony collapse disorder.
> 
> To be fair, his concerns are valid in the context of his business and the impact is one which should be kept squarely on screen when talking about what the causes of CCD are, and what the impacts of action look like. But, for my money, I'm guessing his presence here is nothing more than a not-so-subtle attempt at lobbying a business position, and not, in its current form, relevant to an overarching, objective conversation on neonics, bees, or the science of studying CCD.


----------



## BigDawg

So where is Bayer/Monsanto/Syngenta's real-world data?



BlueDiamond said:


> When a pesticide manufacturer considers introducing a new insecticide to the marketplace it conducts numerous field trials to see if the chemical kills as well in real world field situations (vs existing competitive products) as it does in forced exposure laboratory settings. They know from decades of experience that just because the forced exposure lab studies show the insecticide kills well, in the real world it may not. Ditto in regard to sublethal effects; i.e. just because these effects can be detected in forced exposure lab settings, doesn't mean they will be in a real life full field situations.


----------



## BigDawg

So where is Dr. Little's "full field situation" data? Anybody who knows anything about bees knows full well that it is extremely difficult--if not impossible--to gather meaningful, replicable data from field studies on a mass organism like a bee colony. Calls for such research are little more than red herrings from the pesticide industry designed to call into question the mounting evidence against their products. It's like GM saying you can't use crash-test dummies to find safety flaws with cars because it's not "real world field studies" without actual human subjects. It's rubbish, and everyone knows it.....



BlueDiamond said:


> The bees in the study were not outside in a real world crop / orchard field environment to feed on the pollen. So the study did not demonstrate that bee colonies situated in ag areas where fungicides are used have an impaired ability to fight off Nosema ceranae. As Bayer's Dr. Julian Little has said: "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation"


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Sergey,
you really think that tobacco scientists from the 50's and 60's are still alive and doing research?



cerezha said:


> Tobacco companies, in my opinion, committed the crime and never were punished accordingly. The crime was - systematic purposely misrepresentation of the effects of tobacco smoke on human health. By intentionally doing that, yes, they lost credentials. It is up to every individual to decide in what to believe. Nobody limit you. Now, those tobacco "scientists" are still alive (not punished) and possible do "research" in another place - would you believe them?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> So where is Dr. Little's "full field situation" data?


Some have been posted before. Like this one: http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/


----------



## BigDawg

Yeah. Nice try. 

1. Funding for study comes from Bayer
2. Bees were only exposed to neonics for TWO WEEKS. Please explain how any bees, anywhere, in "full field situations" would only be exposed to neonics for two weeks out of the year?
3. As the recent Pettis article shows, pollen collection from the target crop was very low: "The proportion of pollen that bees collected from the target crop, except for almond and apple, was low (mean±se = 0.33±0.05; Table S1)." http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0070182#pone.0070182-Higes1 Did Scott-Dupree actually analyze the pollen that the test hives were bringing in to ensure that they we actually working the neonics canola fields?

Why didn't they let them get exposed to neonics for the entire year like most bees in intensive ag areas are? Were they afraid of what the data would show?

Where is Dr. Little's "full field situation data" seeing as he says that's the only proper way to study bees.......


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> 2. Bees were only exposed to neonics for TWO WEEKS. Please explain how any bees, anywhere, in "full field situations" would only be exposed to neonics for two weeks out of the year? .


Three weeks exposure followed by nearly a year's worth of health monitoring: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1



BigDawg said:


> Why didn't they let them get exposed to neonics for the entire year like most bees in intensive ag areas are?


 What "intensive ag areas" have crops that are in bloom for a whole year and so would cause bees to get exposed to neonics for an entire year?


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> you really think that tobacco scientists from the 50's and 60's are still alive and doing research?


 Probably not, but from 70es - possible. Scientist with full-professor title could stay in "business" practically until death. They also may work as a consultants to the big companies.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> Some have been posted before. Like this one: http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/


Well, where is the paper? Scott-Dupree apparently got $950000 for her experiments, which was promised to be published, but not yet


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> Three weeks exposure followed by nearly a year's worth of health monitoring


That's not what the article you linked to says: "The hives were placed in the middle of the canola fields at 25 percent canola bloom, *and the bees foraged on the canola for two weeks.
*Following exposure, the 40 colonies were moved to a military site near Meaford, Ont., on a peninsula that extends into Lake Huron, *to ensure the bees wouldn’t forage on crops treated with neonicotinoids for the remainder of the summer.*

Also from the same article:

"“Unfortunately, the colony is so incredible complex in regards as to how it interacts with chemicals in the natural system,” said Chris Mullin, an entomologist who studies pesticides and pollinator health at Penn State.

*“You can do all you want about trying to umbrella the beehive in a field situation, that they can’t forage beyond a certain point…. But that’s not how it works in real life…. The field studies are almost impossible.”*


----------



## BayHighlandBees

cerezha said:


> Probably not, but from 70es - possible. Scientist with full-professor title could stay in "business" practically until death. They also may work as a consultants to the big companies.


it was 1964 when the Surgeon General declared that tobacco was a cause for lung cancer. Any scientist at the time supporting the tobacco companies is long retired (or more likely dead). Even a fresh grad with a masters or a PHD in 1964 (who could feasibly be an assistant researcher) would be well into their 70's by now!

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/


----------



## beenovice

BlueDiamond said:


> When a pesticide manufacturer considers introducing a new insecticide to the marketplace it conducts numerous field trials to see if the chemical kills as well in real world field situations (vs existing competitive products) as it does in forced exposure laboratory settings. *They know from decades of experience* that just because the forced exposure lab studies show the insecticide kills well, in the real world it may not]. Ditto in regard to sublethal effects; i.e. just because these effects can be detected in forced exposure lab settings, doesn't mean they will be in a real life full field situations.


They certainly do : http://corporatewatch.org/?lid=320

The amount of data collected in the last five years somewhow silenced the pro-neonics people here on the forum and yet today, we have you here  I wonder if you will still be here in your pro-mode in 2018.


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> Three weeks exposure followed by nearly a year's worth of health monitoring: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1


In reality, their research proves nothing. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone actually published it. They didn't even bother to test the pollen and nectar samples that they took from the hives to determine what plants it came from, so they have no way of knowing if the bees in the "treated colonies" actually gathered pollen and nectar from the neonics-treated canola fields or not, and if they did, how much. As the recent Pettis article clearly demonstrates, contrary to popular belief bees oftentimes do NOT actively work the fields that they are placed in, preferring to visit other nearby plants instead.

Exposing the test bees to neonics for only 2 or 3 weeks and then proclaiming that neonics don't harm bees is like R.J. Reynolds giving a pack a day of Marlboros to smokers for 3 weeks and then declaring that smoking doesn't cause cancer because after the 3 week test period none of the subjects developed lung cancer......it's ludicrous, but hey, it's exactly what Bayer paid a nearly million dollars to hear when they funded the research.....The fact that they would contract and support such junk science is ever more proof that they are desperate to deflect attention away from the harm that their products cause in order to keep the profits rolling in....


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> it was 1964 when the Surgeon General declared that tobacco was a cause for lung cancer. Any scientist at the time supporting the tobacco companies is long retired (or more likely dead). Even a fresh grad with a masters or a PHD in 1964 (who could feasibly be an assistant researcher) would be well into their 70's by now!


 Well, may be... but in 1993 when I flew to US with the family I was surrounded by smoking people in the Lufthansa airplane. it was nightmare - clouds of smoke filled the space. I also remember a huge Marlboro-man in the Hollywood. So, the war against tobacco may be started in 1964 as you suggested, but it was not over in 1993! 

"*Tobacco Institute * position *papers * were also sent to tobacco company stockholders, to counter what American Brands Chairman Robert K. Heimann called "recent outbreaks of antitobacco propaganda.".. Mainstream newspapers commented on Tobacco Institute reports, but the *"no proof" * message was also spread, according to a 1976 Brown and Williamson PR report, through "letters-to-the-editor, a bimonthly newsletter, feature article placements, pamphlets and brochures, film, direct mail and one-on-one communication with government officials." In 1975 alone, Tobacco Institute "media communicators" made more than 700 public appearances, including radio, TV, and newspaper interviews, plus speeches before clubs in 42 states and the District of Columbia--all to support the industry's position on the "smoking and health controversy." The films produced by the Institute ("Smoking and Health"; "Leaf"; "The Answers We Seek") were seen by more than 500,000 people, to which the reactions were "primarily positive." http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/papers/tobacco.html

Note that pro-neonics propaganda is using the same argument, *"no proof" * as pro-tobacco propaganda. Smart people learn from previous mistakes.


----------



## JohnF

Back it up with facts. Which OP will we go back to. Name it.

Your company sells neonics?



BayHighlandBees said:


> ban neonic pesticides and the US starts using organophosphates.
> 
> Unlike Neonic pesticides which are designed to not impact vertebrates, Organophosphates target all organisms, including large mammals (such as humans) and as we can see Organophosphates can "kill humans dead". Also contrast that Organophosphates spray directly into the environment (land, air, water) and is used as a potency at the discretion of the farmer, vs seed treatments which are pretreated with the intended potency before given to the farmer and the pesticide stays with the plant (aside from a little bit of talc dust in off-label usage).
> 
> This is essentially the hypocrisy of the 'ban neonic' movement laid to bare. To sum it up, they want to move away from the safer modern pesticides and go back to the previous generation of pesticides that were much more toxic than DDT!


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> In reality, their research proves nothing. They didn't even bother to test the pollen and nectar samples that they took from the hives to determine what plants it came from, so they have no way of knowing if the bees in the "treated colonies" actually gathered pollen and nectar from the neonics-treated canola fields or not, and if they did, how much. As the recent Pettis article clearly demonstrates, contrary to popular belief bees oftentimes do NOT actively work the fields that they are placed in, preferring to visit other nearby plants instead.


To the contrary the authors wrote in the Discussion section of their paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1 "Clothianidin residues were detected in some pollen, nectar and honey samples from colonies that were in clothianidin-treated fields, although most samples had no detectable clothianidin residues."

And: "Little alternative forage was available to workers while in canola fields, and workers actively foraged on the canola. To assess potential long-term impacts, data were collected intensely over 130 d during summer and fall, and again in the spring. Overall, we found no differences between colonies from clothianidin-treated and control fields. Colonies in clothianidin-treated fields gained as much weight and yielded as much honey as those in control fields. Mean honey yield per colony in the clothianidin- treated colonies was comparable to the 2005 Ontario honey yield average of 46.6 kg"


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> Note that pro-neonics propaganda is using the same argument, *"no proof" * as pro-tobacco propaganda. Smart people learn from previous mistakes.


In the 1960's the federal government was convinced that the science that showed smoking causes cancer was sound and required health warning statements to be printed on all packs of cigarettes and all cigarette advertisements. In the 2010's both federal and state governments are NOT convinced neonics are adversely affecting bee health.

State example: Washington State rejects petition to curtail neonics: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=10775
Federal example: EPA rejects beekeepers pesticide petition: http://grist.org/food/buzzkill-epa-rejects-beekeepers-pesticide-petition/


----------



## BigDawg

Sure, Clothianidin residues were detected in the pollen, *but they have no idea what species of plant the pollen came from. None.* They never bothered to check where the pollen and nectar actually came from, which was easily done. They ASSUME all of the pollen came from the canola fields, but they did not bother to verify that. In fact, because the study had flawed methodology, what they DID find was that some of the pollen, nectar, and honey from the control group (the group that was not supposed to be exposed to neonics) DID contain neonics residue.

Further, by their own admission "most of the pollen, nectar, and honey samples had no detectable clothianidin residues." Ok, so how exactly is that proof that clothianidin isn't harmful to bees when A) they were only exposed to neonics-coated seed crops for 2 weeks, and B) the authors admit that the bees exposure to clothianidin was nearly non-existent? 

Also, let's not forget that this study was the one used by Bayer to demonstrate to the EPA and the PMRA that clothianidin was safe for bees! Three weeks exposure, and they deemed it to be safe?!? No wonder we're having such problems with the bees.....

It's worth noting that due to several deficiencies with the research project from 2005-2006 (most notably too small of research plot size and cross-contamination from treated hives to control hives) Canada's Pest Managment Regulatory Agency called the original study "deficient" and required Bayer to re-do the study. While the research parameters were changed and a new study was completed in 2012, to date the results of that study have not been published.....



BlueDiamond said:


> To the contrary the authors wrote in the Discussion section of their paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1 "Clothianidin residues were detected in some pollen, nectar and honey samples from colonies that were in clothianidin-treated fields, although most samples had no detectable clothianidin residues."


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Daniel Y said:


> One alternative use for tobacco is to make a soup out of it or really more of a tea and use that mixture as an insecticide. I repels the insects rather than kill them. Not many insects will eat tobacco. It is a member of the nightshade family along with the Tomato. Like the Tomato the Horned Tomato worm (Larva of the Sphinx Moth) is about the biggest pest. There are some molds and a disease or tow that effect it. Aphids will also be found on it but I never see them to much. Bees will not touch it although they like to set on the dark leaves early in the morning to get warm. There is a wasp here that seems determined to get to the seed pods and have even eaten through cloth to get to them.
> 
> The claim is that tobacco repels insects so effectively solely because of the nicotine.
> 
> One though I have. if nicotine naturally repels honey bees. Why can't they make an insecticide that actually repels bees?


or better yet, you could modify the nicotine slightly so that its effect on vertebrates is minimized. 

Oh, right :shhhh:


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I don't get a vibe that 'pro-neonics' opinions have been silenced on the forum. And why does the anti-group always try to turn this into unrelated discussions of what companies did 70-100 years ago?

Honestly shouldn't this thread be about the bees and science-based discussion of CCD? Let's also increase the ETPM value as well.

Q: What's ETPM you ask? 
A: It's the "Estimated Time until PCB Manufacturing" in the early 1900's is brought up again.

I guess now we have to add "Pharmaceutical Phailings" and mustard gas manufacturing during WWI to the list of tangents getting brought up here.





beenovice said:


> They certainly do : http://corporatewatch.org/?lid=320
> 
> The amount of data collected in the last five years somewhow silenced the pro-neonics people here on the forum and yet today, we have you here  I wonder if you will still be here in your pro-mode in 2018.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> ... paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1...


 It is very sad to see such low quality paper in which $950K were invested by Bayer (no acknowledgement of this fact in the paper). The problem with paper is that they actually do not provide results - they just make a statements based on the data, which is not present in the paper  There are few graphs, which could be actually used as a data source. Fig.2 shows mortality rate for drones and workers. Well ... it is just shown on the graph that mortality approximately 50% higher for colonies stayed in treated canola fields. There is another increase in mortality for workers from treated fields when they moved to non-canola location.


----------



## beenovice

BayHighlandBees said:


> I don't get a vibe that 'pro-neonics' opinions have been silenced on the forum. And why does the anti-group always try to turn this into unrelated discussions of what companies did 70-100 years ago?
> 
> Honestly shouldn't this thread be about the bees and science-based discussion of CCD? Let's also increase the ETPM value as well.
> 
> Q: What's ETPM you ask?
> A: It's the "Estimated Time until PCB Manufacturing" in the early 1900's is brought up again.
> 
> I guess now we have to add "Pharmaceutical Phailings" and mustard gas manufacturing during WWI to the list of tangents getting brought up here.


It's nice how you try to put everything 70-100 years ago. Some events are recent (2000s). It just shows how much they care and that is my point. When they say something I just don't believe them anymore....

We can also see in this thread that pro-neonics guy. He twists and turns everything just to suit his needs. When someone points to obvious fallacies he just ignores it and goes on and on and on and on around the same thing.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Further, by their own admission "most of the pollen, nectar, and honey samples had no detectable clothianidin residues." Ok, so how exactly is that proof that clothianidin isn't harmful to bees when A) they were only exposed to neonics-coated seed crops for 2 weeks, and B) the authors admit that the bees exposure to clothianidin was nearly non-existent?


The purpose of the project as stated on page 770 was "to use a realistic, worst-case scenario for honey bee exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola. Seed was successfully treated with clothianidin at the highest recommended commercial rate for Canada and planted at a high seeding rate in 1-ha Þelds, ensuring ample forage for worker bees. Honey bee colonies were placed in the middle of canola fields during the [early] bloom period, ensuring maximum exposure, and then they were moved to a fall apiary near bloom end. Little alternative forage was available to workers while in canola Þelds, and workers actively foraged on the canola."

So we see that even though the bees foraged almost exclusively on the clothianidin seed-treated canola for nearly it's entire bloom period "most of the pollen, nectar, and honey samples had no detectable clothianidin residues". And on 771 they further write: "[clothianidin] exposure concentrations [in pollen, nectar, and honey] were well below those reportedly required to elicit toxic effects. Under the worst-case Þeld scenario we attempted to use, no differences between colonies exposed to clothianidin seed-treated or control canola were found in terms of bee mortality or longevity, brood development, honey yield and over-winter survival. Field exposure to clothianidin seed- treated canola presents negligible risk to honey bees."

Your question "how exactly is that proof that clothianidin isn't harmful to bees" is not relevant because the question at hand was: Is clothianidin seed-treated canola harmful to bees?" And the authors found it wasn't even in the worst case exposure scenario.


----------



## jim lyon

Its worth noting that canola is highly attractive to honeybees, intense flows and large honey crops are routinely seen. Putting hives in the midst of a field of canola only during its bloom would seem to be the very best way to ensure maximum exposure as the hives would have had no previous history of working any other local nectar or pollen sources. The same process is often followed by orchards requiring pollination that prefer bees be brought in only at bloom onset to maximize their attractiveness to bees. In short, if this isnt a worst case canola exposure scenario I would be interested in hearing how the experiment could be run differently.


----------



## Jonathan Hofer

jim lyon said:


> Its worth noting that canola is highly attractive to honeybees, intense flows and large honey crops are routinely seen.


A big emphasis on the "routinely" part. I have seen some years where bees didn't touch the canola. I don't know if it is the variety or another variable. For example: this year, we have canola fields within 300m of the hives. After numerous checks, I've only seen one bee on the canola one time I checked. The clover on the other side of the road is loaded with bees.


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> The purpose of the project as stated on page 770 was "to use a realistic, worst-case scenario for honey bee exposure to clothianidin seed-treated canola.....


Yes, and the project methodology was so flawed--i.e. the control group hives, the ones that were NOT supposed to be exposed to neonic canola actually tested positive for clothianidin residue--that the PMRA required them to modify their methods and do it again. So far, the results of the re-do have not been published....

Lastly, it would be interesting to see the "field hives" exposed to REALISTIC levels of neonics instead of a mere 2 weeks of exposure like this study. The vast majority of the hives that have been confirmed as CCD victims are migratory hives that are exposed to multiple brands of neonics over a several month period. You don't get lung cancer by smoking for two weeks.......


----------



## gmcharlie

2 weeks would be a realistic time on canola..... 3 max........ and with 6 week worker life sounds reasonable to me..... Oh wait I am one of them....


----------



## BigDawg

Charlie I don't think even the most rabid anti-neonic crowd believes that a hive can get CCD merely from two weeks exposure on a single neonic crop!  If there were any evidence of that, frankly I think that would be more than enough justification for at least temporarily banning neonics. 

I think most reasonable people understand that CCD isn't from a single crop or a single neonic, rather it is both the cumulative amount of exposure over time, plus the way that the pesticide residues interact with each other in the hive.



gmcharlie said:


> 2 weeks would be a realistic time on canola..... 3 max........ and with 6 week worker life sounds reasonable to me..... Oh wait I am one of them....


----------



## BayHighlandBees

so are we saying the Marlboro Man is a tobacco scientist now?


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> so are we saying the Marlboro Man is a tobacco scientist now?


 How anybody could knows? It is rhetoric question. 
I think, that a lot of "science" was used to create this tobacco idol! I think, Bayer&Ko should follow tobacco companies - they should create an "healthy bee" idol and place it in the center of the every neonics treated field! Properly created idols could do more than science...


----------



## BayHighlandBees

JohnF said:


> Back it up with facts. Which OP will we go back to. Name it.


Organophosphates are toxic to humans and other vertebrates and cause a number of other adverse effect:
Acute toxicity - (chlorfenvinphos, has an LD50 in the range 1-30 mg/kg).
Neurological effects, Psychiatric effects, Cardiac effects, Teratogenicity (birth defects),Cancer, Eye defects

Organophosphates are more toxic than DDT:

"By the late 1970s, the use of OPs began to over-take the organochlorine insecticides which included DDT. While organochlorines were relatively safe to use, their problem was persistence in the environment and detection in the human food chain. OPs on the other hand are more acutely toxic, but, do not persist in the environment beyond a few months. So with the switch from organochlorines to OPs, it can be assumed that the consumer has benefited at the expense of the pesticide operator."

Poisonings: 
The World Health Organization estimates that there are in total three million acute severe cases of pesticide poisonings and 20,000 unintentional deaths each year, mostly in developing countries

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/organoph.htm
-------------------

farmers transitioning from Organophosphates to Neonics:

"Neonics are a new class of systemic pesticide popular in the US, Australia, Europe and elsewhere to help corn, soy, cotton and canola farmers. They were adopted over the past 20 years as a less toxic replacement of organophosphate pesticides, which are known to kill bees and wildlife, and have been linked to health problems in workers...[with neonics] The seed treatment lowers the amount used 10 to 20 fold, decreasing the need for open spraying of the plant, a genuine sustainability benefit." 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...eal-story-behind-neonics-and-mass-bee-deaths/

Organophosphates were originally developed by the Nazi's as nerve agents (Sarin, Tabun, and Soman are all technically organophosphates). After WWII the americans gained access to the Nazi research and directly used it to start developing the first Organophosphate pesticides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate#Organophosphate_pesticides

In terms of specific pesticides: 
*Malathion was used to combat agricultural pests in California such as the Mediterranean fruit fly (and is currently used on mosquitos to combat west nile virus)
*Parathion and Methyl Parathion is used on rice, cotton, and fruit trees
*Chlorpyrifos is used on cotton, corn, almonds, and fruit trees including oranges, bananas and apples. Not only is this toxic to humans (might have been the cause of Gulf War Syndrome) and animals, but it is extremely toxic to amphibians, aquatic life, and BEES! 
chlorpyrifos was also a well known home and garden insecticide, and at one time it was one of the most widely used household pesticides in the US (I suspect replaced by all the Neonic home and garden pesiticides).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate#Organophosphate_pesticides


----------



## BayHighlandBees

just to raise my point again:

why would you ban a more targeted and modern pesticide and therefore reintroduce the ancient Organophosphate pesticides that are applied airborne, dramatically impact most or all wildlife (mammals, amphibians, aquatic), humans, and are also toxic to bees? :scratch:

Only one way to describe this idea:


----------



## BayHighlandBees

interesting couple of articles put out from a new zealand site. It adds to the list of evidence (using the countries of Australia and New Zealand in their entirety) as proof that Neonic pesticides are not responsible for CCD.

Neonics-factsheet
Bees-Agribusiness-July

-------
Is it true that neonics are contributing to declining bee population 
and bee health?
No. Some groups have claimed that neonics are responsible for Colony Collapse Disorder 
(CCD), reported in the United States, and severe winter colony losses in Europe. However 
independent scientific research has concluded that the varroa mite is the main cause, 
amongst others, for these losses. 
In Australia, neonics have been used for around 20 years but, because it has no varroa, it is 
said to have the healthiest bees in the world.
In New Zealand neonics have been used since well before (Gaucho first registered and used 
in 1992) the varroa mite was first identified in 2000. Feral bee numbers have been 
decimated, but managed bee hive numbers have increased by 40 percent between 2005
and 2013.


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> ...In Australia, neonics have been used for around 20 years but, because it has no varroa, it is said to have the healthiest bees in the world....


 Come on. This argument was introduced by Bayer and was heavily discussed on beesource. People from Australia testified that they do not keep bees in near proximity from treated fields. Even some official from agricultural ministry (?) provided an official letter on this regard - it is somewhere on beesource. Please, do not continue the tradition of BlueDiamond repeating old "arguments" again and again ... it is not fun to read the same stuff 10 times 
If you new and want to jump into discussion, please, do your homework first - read what already posted on beesource


----------



## cerezha

*Internet slang: a troll*

I think we all should remember this:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


----------



## BayHighlandBees

so you are saying in the last 20 years in australia no beekeeper has kept bees in agricultural areas within a couple of miles of fields with Neonic spray or seed treatments? I find that awfully hard to believe.

The Neonic paranoia as only bee around the last couple of years. Were talking the 90's here.



cerezha said:


> Come on. This argument was introduced by Bayer and was heavily discussed on beesource. People from Australia testified that they do not keep bees in near proximity from treated fields. Even some official from agricultural ministry (?) provided an official letter on this regard - it is somewhere on beesource. Please, do not continue the tradition of BlueDiamond repeating old "arguments" again and again ... it is not fun to read the same stuff 10 times
> If you new and want to jump into discussion, please, do your homework first - read what already posted on beesource


----------



## BayHighlandBees

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*

Sergey,
now you're the one bringing up old tactics. Look how many hits for your troll slander shows up when I do a google search on "Sergey Troll on besource.com"!!

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=sergey+troll&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=beesource.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#q=sergey+troll+site:beesource.com&lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&ei=j9H0UeKTGsS6rgHdxIC4Dw&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.&fp=c1b979c941d34e9b&biw=960&bih=498&bvm=pv.xjs.s.en_US.MpiVkF51mpA.O

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276087-Idea-and-question/page3
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?276087-Idea-and-question/page4
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?270392-Can-someone-please-explain-the-Foundationless-hype-to-me/page17
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?282083-The-Australian-distraction/page3
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?277893-Tests-Show-Most-Store-Honey-Isn%92t-Honey/page14
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?277893-Tests-Show-Most-Store-Honey-Isn%92t-Honey/page17
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?271812-Top-Bars-quot-Pros-and-Cons-quot-Presentation/page3
http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?275790-Is-Beekeeping-broke/page4
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-276087.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-277893-p-2.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-271812.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-270392-p-2.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-275790.html
http://www.beesource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-282083.html




cerezha said:


> I think we all should remember this:
> 
> In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> so you are saying in the last 20 years in australia no beekeeper has kept bees in agricultural areas within a couple of miles of fields with Neonic spray or seed treatments? I find that awfully hard to believe....


 I do not know, it is not me but real Australian beekeepers - unfortunately, I am bad at searching beesource, but we had a whole discussion on it. Apparently, Australian beekeepers were sort of offended by idea of placing bees near treated fields. Some of them claimed that they placed bees in pristine untouched nature - I guess, Australia still have such. The best would be if real Australians will comment on this issue.

In general, such arguments are meaningless. It is not an argument, it is just statement without any real foundation. For example, I just communicated with Russian beekeeper and asked if they have similar problems. His respond was - yes, we have varroa problem, but it is manageable; my winter loses from zero to 5-10% (wintering in beehouse); bees never saw a syrup (neighbors will kill for syrup); hive productivity - ~100 kg/year AND they do not know what neonicotinoids are  (it is remote village and Russia prohibit Monsanto, Bayer&Ko)

Based on your logic, I must declare that in Russia, in the area where apiary is, there is no neonics but varroa and 200 lb honey per beehive! Thus, in absence of neonics but with presence of varroa, in Russia, bees have normal winterloss and produced 2x more honey than in US where winterloses are higher and hive's productivity only 80 lb/hive. Russia has probably a thousand years history of beekeeping. I feel, this argument is stronger than Australian... What you think about such turn?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

cerezha said:


> Come on. This argument was introduced by Bayer and was heavily discussed on beesource. People from Australia testified that they do not keep bees in near proximity from treated fields. Even some official from agricultural ministry (?) provided an official letter on this regard - it is somewhere on beesource. Please, do not continue the tradition of BlueDiamond repeating old "arguments" again and again ... it is not fun to read the same stuff 10 times
> If you new and want to jump into discussion, please, do your homework first - read what already posted on beesource


There was a thread, The Australian distraction, that was started by the borderbeeman (who's not from Australia). His post was highly questioned by others and then the thread quickly evolved into the ethics of selling Manuka honey in Australia (when the Australian Tea Tree isn't the same species as Manuka). Then it evolved into an american discussion on how to prove that healthy bees farming on neonic crops aren't affected by the pesiticide. Pretty sure there was nothing about Australians testifying that bees are kept away from the farmland with neonic treated plantings.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*



BayHighlandBees said:


> .. Look how many hits for your troll slander shows up ...


 Yes, unfortunately, some people are not familiar with Internet ethics (or do it purposely). Trolling is quite powerful "weapon" and needs to be controlled.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*

which people do you think are "not familar with Internet ethics and need to be controlled"?


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> There was a thread, ...





Kidbeeyoz said:


> Hello Cerezha and everyone. Thanks for your welcomes.
> 
> I live in a coast belt and my beekeeping is confined to native forests and does not extend into farm lands. However, I have read with interest the goings on with neonicotinoids in the EU.
> 
> I belong to a beekeepers organisation which has one beekeeper who migrates to Canola. I recall he said how his bees went through the season in poor condition but he seemed to blame Macadamia which produces a low protein pollen which breeds "gutless bees".


http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...ensland-Australia&highlight=australia+neonics


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*



BayHighlandBees said:


> which people do you think are "not familar with Internet ethics and need to be controlled"?


in my original post, I am not talking about people. I merely presented the description of the "troll" from Wikipedia. I do not think that "troll" is a people  Forgive my ESL


----------



## BayHighlandBees

sergey,
seriously that's your link? That "Hello-from-Queensland-Australia" thread is a new forum member saying hello. It has 9 posts on it (6 of people posting hello + your blank post from today)!

:scratch:


----------



## Barry

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*



cerezha said:


> Trolling is quite powerful "weapon" and needs to be controlled.


The only way a troll has any negative impact on a discussion is when people give them the time of day. If you think there are trolls in this thread, why do you spend so much time legitimizing them with your replies?


----------



## squarepeg

cerezha said:


> Based on your logic, I must declare that in Russia, in the area where apiary is, there is no neonics but varroa and 200 lb honey per beehive! Thus, in absence of neonics but with presence of varroa, in Russia, bees have normal winterloss and produced 2x more honey than in US where winterloses are higher and hive's productivity only 80 lb/hive. Russia has probably a thousand years history of beekeeping. I feel, this argument is stronger than Australian... What you think about such turn?


it is true that the russian strain of bee shows more resistance to mites, but according to this source it has come after *150* years of achieving a tolerable parasite/host relationship. (not the case yet in the u.s. and australia)

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/2.16 copy.pdf

and it may also have to do with the difference in phenotypes, i.e. v. destructor vs. v jacobsoni


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> it is true that the russian strain of bee shows more resistance to mites, but ...i


 OK, we could interpret it this way: bees, tolerates varroa and good in all other ways brought to US where they exposed to neonics and -surprise, bees do not perform as expected anymore! They performed well in Russia without neonics and they do not perform well with neonics! If argument with Australia considered to be legitimate, this Russian argument must be legitimate also!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*



Barry said:


> The only way a troll has any negative impact on a discussion is when people give them the time of day. If you think there are trolls in this thread, why do you spend so much time legitimizing them with your replies?


 For the forum sake, trolls are beneficial - the scandals attract attention. Since, everything is public, it is important that a single troll would not shape the public opinion. I disagree that ignoring trolls would address the issue - they will continue to disturb a peaceful discussion(s).


----------



## BayHighlandBees

*Re: Internet slang: a troll*

enough with the troll calling. Can we go back to the topic?


----------



## cerezha

squarepeg said:


> it is true that the russian strain of bee shows more resistance to mites, but according to this source it has come after *150* years of achieving a tolerable parasite/host relationship. (not the case yet in the u.s. and australia)...http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/entomology/apiculture/pdfs/2.16 copy.pdf


Hmmm, I am not sure that I agree with this statement. As far as I remember, varroa comes to Russia in about the same time as in US. I've read very sweet story regarding this. Do not ask for references - I have no idea. I was reading for pleasure, not to satisfy ... who? on beesource. So, the story was how varroa come and destroyed all hives in central Russia. Only one beehive survived (literally according to story). Te hive was in the bell-tower of the destroyed by communists church. This hive become a mother-hive for all varroa survivor bees. Russian beekepers are very sentimental and they do believe in this story. The problem is that those bees were called "central-Russia bees." The bees imported to US were from entirely different area of Russia - those bees were never popular between Russian beekeepers as far as I can tell. Why US imported that particular strain I do not know. Currently, most popular variety of bees in central-Russia is "karpatskaya" (карпатская) and some new strain, which was developed by Russian beekeeper Sergey Prokydin (Сергей Прокудин) in Germany - extremely peaceful! Bees are very docile. As expressed by my Russian beekeeper-friend: "I am working bees in underwear in my backyard"  He also told me that prices on honey used to be good, but now - so much honey that he could not sell more than 2 metric tons of honey (on the farmers market). My understanding is that he has 30-40 beehives. Did not intend to argue, just share what I hear.


----------



## gmcharlie

If this is a test plan for CCD its foolish...... its to see the effects of neoinics in the bees. That is the point.
A test for CCD at this point is impossible. we can't replicate it. we don't know its cause or function. and the number or real CCD cases is so rare we can't seem to agree it exist. Feeding them anything, and hoeing they vanish and you can blame it is not a CCD test..... 

These are test to see the effects of certain chems. at this point we are not smart enough to replicate CCD. so linking neonics to CCD is foolish. unluess I have missed something totaly, these are test wild THEORIES, none of which yet has panned out in any sort of real world test...... Has Any Scientist actually replicated a real case of CCD?? or just monitorid hive declines, which are not in my book the same thing.


----------



## camero7

i think Randy Oliver has replicated some of the symptoms of CCD, but has refrained from calling it that.


----------



## jeffnmo

cerezha: your thoughts on the tobacco industry and the scientist who worked for them are fine for your view. My question is why when discussing CCD do certain people have to throw out the tobacco problem. We're talking bees and pesticides. There should be no red herrings merely the exchange of good info and well reasoned debate. name calling and references to past crimes by other industries don't really have a place.


----------



## cerezha

jeffnmo said:


> cerezha: your thoughts on the tobacco industry and the scientist who worked for them are fine for your view. My question is why when discussing CCD do certain people have to throw out the tobacco problem. We're talking bees and pesticides.....


 I explained it earlier - neonicotinoids are derivatives from nicotine, which is poison as we all know. So, there is a direct connection between tobacco industry poisoning people and companies (you name them) poisoning bees, other beneficial insects and potentially humans. Approach used by tobacco industry is using by other companies for their advantage now. I feel, it is not necessary to repeat mistakes - some people could learn from previous mistakes


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

cerezha said:


> I explained it earlier - neonicotinoids are derivatives from nicotine, which is poison as we all know. So, there is a direct connection between tobacco industry poisoning people and companies (you name them) poisoning bees, other beneficial insects and potentially humans.


Nicotine may be a poison, _depending on the dose_. So is _*caffeine*_!  Reference for this is here, courtesy of the National Institute of Health (NIH): 


> *Poisonous Ingredient*
> 
> Caffeine
> Symptoms in adults may include:
> 
> 
> Breathing trouble
> Changes in alertness
> Confusion
> Convulsions
> Diarrhea
> Dizziness
> Fever
> ....... more ....
> 
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002579.htm


So can we next expect you to be linking CCD to *coffee *or *soft drinks*? It makes about as much sense as linking smoking/tobacco to bees!

:ws:


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> .... linking smoking/tobacco to bees!


 Wellll
smoking - we DO smoke bees
tobacco - bees have exposed to derivative of tobacco

:ws:

as for caffeine - you repeating the "arguments" used many times at beesource before. We even discussed that NaCl may be poisonous... it is not an argument. Connection between neonicotinoids and nicotine were used as an * illustration * how big companies did everything possible to compromise the scientific evidence that smoking is linked to the lung cancer. You twisted my statement


----------



## jeffnmo

Cerezah; As Rader mentioned nicotine is a poison but we are not talking cigarettes and people we are talking bees and pesticides. It is opinion about strategies used by tobacco and ag companies. For the benefit of our bees lets stay on subject and leave out the rest. As a scientist you should understand this,


----------



## pharmbee

Water is also toxic to humans (and bees) in high doses.


----------



## cerezha

jeffnmo said:


> ...For the benefit of our bees lets stay on subject and leave out the rest. As a scientist you should understand this,


 Sure, absolutely. let's discuss the Fig.2 from Bayer-paid ($950K) research article, post #121. To me as scientist, it is obvious that the mortality of bees in the treated field is statistically higher than in control. Anybody could see that solid circle (treated) is higher than open circle (control)? Note also that error-bars do not overlap, which indicates statistically significant difference. This is real stuff - let's talk about this. Anybody?
paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## cerezha

pharmbee said:


> Water is also toxic to humans (and bees) in high doses.


 do you drink from faucet or bottled?


----------



## pharmbee

I stopped drinking water when I found out fish had sex in it.


----------



## hedges

I stopped smoking because I was worried about my lungs. I don't keep my cell phone or CRT tv in my bedroom because I was worried about my brain. I wear sun screen because I'm worried about my skin. 

The. List. Goes. On. I'm not a hypochondriac, the sky isn't falling, and I'm not a hippie. But if neonicitanoids are toxic to me or some component of my world that I care about, I can leave them on the side of the road and wave bye in my rear view mirror. 

These deflective, interested arguments to try to trivialize the idea of critically viewing the world around us and protecting ourselves from harm should embarrass you all. They certainly won't convince any viewers of this thread that 'everything's fine. Move along.' And they won't convince viewers that the industry cares about the potential concerns and is responsible beyond what they can get away with.

That's the truth.

I think you're a bunch of snake-oil salesmen.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> Sure, absolutely. let's discuss the Fig.2 from Bayer-paid ($950K) research article, post #121. To me as scientist, it is obvious that the mortality of bees in the treated field is statistically higher than in control. paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1


On page 117 in the Discussion section the authors emphasized what matters most to beekeepers: honey yield and winter mortality. They wrote: "Only 14% of colonies alive in autumn did not survive winter, and half of those colonies were control colonies; overwinter colony losses of 15% are not unusual in southern Ontario (P. Kelly, personal communication). Above all other factors, beekeepers would probably consider honey yield and overwinter mortality the most basic and yet most important measures of colony health."


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> On page 117 in the Discussion section the authors emphasized what matters most to beekeepers: honey yield and winter mortality. They wrote: "Only 14% of colonies alive in autumn did not survive winter, and half of those colonies were control colonies; overwinter colony losses of 15% are not unusual in southern Ontario (P. Kelly, personal communication). Above all other factors, beekeepers would probably consider honey yield and overwinter mortality the most basic and yet most important measures of colony health."


 you do trolling because distract us from the point - we DO discuss Fig 2 in the paper. Do you agree that the filled circle is higher than empty circle on the graph? This is only thing we discuss now, sorry. Please read above - it was decided that we do not want to drift away from the subject. Subject currently is Fig 2.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> On page 117 ...





jeffnmo said:


> ... For the benefit of our bees lets stay on subject and leave out the rest. As a scientist you should understand this,


*Jeffnmo * could you help BlueDiamon to understand?


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> To me as scientist, it is obvious that the mortality of bees in the treated field is statistically higher than in control.
> paper: https://dspace.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10214/2621/32546.pdf?sequence=1


The authors wrote on pahe 769: "The number of dead workers collected per colony was not affected by clothianidin treatment or the interaction of treatment with Day. Dead drone collections also were not affected by clothianidin treatment or the interaction of treatment with Day. As with worker collections, number of dead drones collected per week changed over time, but there was no difference whether dead drones were collected with DBT or entrance sheets. More dead workers than drones were recovered throughout the experiment, and worker and drone mortality increased in autumn (e.g., Day 99) as colonies prepared for overwintering (Fig. 2)."


----------



## hedges

Isn't the entire premise of that flawed though? I thought the going theory on neonic influence on CCD was that workers got disoriented on the way back to the hive.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> The authors wrote on pahe 769: "The number of dead workers collected per colony was not affected by clothianidin treatment or the interaction of treatment with Day....


 which is simply not true based on their own graph presented in the Fig 2. This question authors ability to make a conclusions based on the presented data.


----------



## cerezha

hedges said:


> Isn't the entire premise of that flawed though? I thought the going theory on neonic influence on CCD was that workers got disoriented on the way back to the hive.


 No, they were trying to measure acute toxicity of the clothianidin in the field condition. No one could measure chronic toxicity if bees were exposed only for 3 weeks. What they did - they exposed for 3 weeks and than watch the colonies until next season. It does not make any sense because for acute toxicity they do *not* need such long period of time. In fact, on the graph, Fig.2 is clearly shown the increase of the dead bees in treated experiment vs untreated. 
From another hand, for chronic toxicity, the colony needs to be exposed to clothianidin for long period of time. Note that because beehive is a superorganism, the exposure must be comparable with the beehive living cycle, not individual bee lifespan. It just amused me how it is possible to do such lousy work for $950K.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> which is simply not true based on their own graph presented in the Fig 2. This question authors ability to make a conclusions based on the presented data. :


 On page 768 the authors explained: "Although [white] entrance sheets resulted in no technical difficulties or inadequate data, the operation of DBT was occasionally unreliable during the experiment." 

The reliable [white] entrance sheet data shows the number of dead workers and drones collected per colony was not affected by clothianidin treatment or the interaction of treatment with Day.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> No one could measure chronic toxicity if bees were exposed only for 3 weeks. What they did - they exposed for 3 weeks and than watch the colonies until next season... for chronic toxicity, the colony needs to be exposed to clothianidin for long period of time. Note that because beehive is a superorganism, the exposure must be comparable with the beehive living cycle, not individual bee lifespan.


If a 25% or more of the plants in a canola field are in bloom for only 3-4 weeks and the lifespan of a worker is only 4-6 weeks, why do the workers need to be exposed for more than 3 weeks? In other words, why be concerned with chronic worker toxicity when there will not be chronic worker exposure?


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Sergey, 
would you feel different about the pesticide if it weren't manufactured by a big company? 



cerezha said:


> Connection between neonicotinoids and nicotine were used as an * illustration * how big companies did everything possible to compromise the scientific evidence that smoking is linked to the lung cancer. You twisted my statement


----------



## BigDawg

It's worth noting that the study's methodology was so flawed that the EPA downgraded it's relevance because it didn't conform to EPA standards, and the PMRA in Canada required the study to be completely redone.

It's hard to take any of the study's findings seriously when the control groups hives---the one NOT exposed to clothianidin--tested positive for clothianidin residue.....

Add to that the fact that the bees were only exposed to neonics for 2 weeks, well, it's pretty much useless IMHO.......


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> would you feel different about the pesticide if it weren't manufactured by a big company?


 Ooo definetely not! I am a biochemist - I do know what it is and how it could affect the health. And, actually, I am not anti-all-pesticide person: as long as it is proven scientifically (at my standards) that this particular chemical is safe for human, target AND environment, I am fine with this. The problem with neonics is that it is working at the very sophisticated molecular level and existing tests did not convince me that it is safe. Bad science published by manufacturers did not help ether.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> On page 768 the authors explained: "Although [white] entrance sheets resulted in no technical difficulties or inadequate data, the operation of DBT was occasionally unreliable during the experiment." ...


:ws:
Error bar is the same, which indicates that there is no uncertainly between two methods. DBT is more difficult to fake  thus - more dead bees


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Sergey, 
I see a common theme with you. Anytime someone makes valid points against your ideas, you start posting the troll name.



cerezha said:


> trolling! read and try to understand my statement!


----------



## BayHighlandBees

then why bring up the topic of 'big companies doing evil deed' in you arguments?



cerezha said:


> Ooo definetely not! I am a biochemist - I do know what it is and how it could affect the health. And, actually, I am not anti-all-pesticide person: as long as it is proven scientifically (at my standards) that this particular chemical is safe for human, target AND environment, I am fine with this. The problem with neonics is that it is working at the very sophisticated molecular level and existing tests did not convince me that it is safe. Bad science published by manufacturers did not help ether.


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> ... Anytime someone makes valid points against your ideas, you start posting the troll name.


As we already discussed, trolls distract from the main point and it needs to be addressed. In this thread, I have no personal idea/agenda - I am just trying to prevent trolls from misrepresentation of the data on public forum. Who started this "discussion" about the $950K paper? BlueDiamond, I believe. So, it is his/her agenda, not mine. The paper has obvious error(s) - I indicated the problem. It does not matter how much BlueDiamond or anybody else will publish unrelated random comments - the problem with graph will exist. You know why? Because, it has been published and any scientist could see this.


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> 'big companies doing evil deed' in you arguments?


could you please provide the reference where I stated that 'big companies doing evil deed'? I usually specific, so far I discussed: tobacco - yes, they misguided the public opinion purposely; Monsanto - contaminated indigenous maize in south America and harass small farmers; Bayer&Ko managed to obtain counteraction from entire EU - I believe more EU than Bayer&Ko.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

cerezha said:


> could you please provide the reference where I stated that 'big companies doing evil deed'?


Right here!


cerezha said:


> Connection between neonicotinoids and nicotine were used as an illustration how _*big companies did everything possible to compromise *_the scientific evidence that smoking is linked to the lung cancer.


It would seem that you post this stuff without paying much attention to the words you actually write!
:lpf: :scratch:


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

cerezha said:


> As we already discussed, _*trolls *_distract from the main point and _it needs to be addressed._


So, using your description of _*trolls*_, what exactly were you thinking when you posted this? (the quote below is your _entire _post):


cerezha said:


> do you drink from faucet or bottled?


Your post seems to fit your own characterization of a *troll*!


----------



## Barry

Watch out for Graham, we don't call him the Resident Archiver for nothing!


----------



## gmcharlie

cerezha said:


> No, they were trying to measure acute toxicity of the clothianidin in the field condition. No one could measure chronic toxicity if bees were exposed only for 3 weeks. What they did - they exposed for 3 weeks and than watch the colonies until next season. It does not make any sense because for acute toxicity they do *not* need such long period of time. In fact, on the graph, Fig.2 is clearly shown the increase of the dead bees in treated experiment vs untreated.
> From another hand, for chronic toxicity, the colony needs to be exposed to clothianidin for long period of time. Note that because beehive is a superorganism, the exposure must be comparable with the beehive living cycle, not individual bee lifespan. It just amused me how it is possible to do such lousy work for $950K.


Let me help Cerz out here, what hes trying to say, and doing so poorly at is "THEY DIDN'T POISON THEM TILL THEY ALL DIED TO SUPPORT MY CONCLUSION"


----------



## jeffnmo

Cerez; you have just confused me. I thought the discussion was the study. Blue is just quoteing from it, not from the outside. Now if the study contradicts itself that tells me it is flawed or not explained properly by the authors.


----------



## cerezha

Rader Sidetrack said:


> ....Your post seems to fit your own characterization of a *troll*!


Funny, but if you think so, than I should stop posting - enjoy yourself :ws:


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> It's hard to take any of the study's findings seriously when the control groups hives---the one NOT exposed to clothianidin--tested positive for clothianidin residue...


I think the indisputable and most important finding of the study was that the winter loss was only 15% in both the exposed and control bees. Thus we see clothianidin seed treatments don't compromise bee health.


----------



## BigDawg

Yeah, after 2 weeks of possible exposure to neonics (the study's authors never bothered to check the dna from the pollen samples collected from the hives to make sure the bees were actually foraging on the neonic canola....) apparently the bees did ok. But where are the real life studies from Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta? Neonics have been a suspected culprit in CCD for nearly 7 years now threatening the $3 billion a year neonics industry, and you mean to tell me that the industry hasn't done any long-term exposure studies?

I'm betting that they have, and that they weren't happy with the results and so they are keeping the studies to themselves.....



BlueDiamond said:


> I think the indisputable and most important finding of the study was that the winter loss was only 15% in both the exposed and control bees. Thus we see clothianidin seed treatments don't compromise bee health.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Sergey,
I think you answered your own question



cerezha said:


> could you please provide the reference where I stated that 'big companies doing evil deed'? I usually specific, so far I discussed: tobacco - yes, they misguided the public opinion purposely; Monsanto - contaminated indigenous maize in south America and harass small farmers; Bayer&Ko managed to obtain counteraction from entire EU - I believe more EU than Bayer&Ko.


----------



## BigDawg

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Right here!
> 
> 
> It would seem that you post this stuff without paying much attention to the words you actually write!
> :lpf: :scratch:


Well, it's true. Big tobacco lied for DECADES claiming their product was safe when they KNEW, FOR A FACT that it wasn't. Monsanto did the same thing with PCB's, Dioxin, etc., but now that they've changed a few legal documents (even though the "new Monsanto" shares the same building and board of directors with the "old Monsanto" we're supposed to believe that now they're good guys all of the sudden? Meh............


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Dog,

canola blooms for 3 weeks
http://canola.okstate.edu/commonquestions

as mentioned earlier: 3 weeks is ~33% of a bee's life, and 100% of its childhood. Isn't that enough?
Also if the canola bloom only normally lasts 3 weeks, isn't the test a normal experience for bees (at least for bees living in neonic canola fields)? 



BigDawg said:


> Yeah, after 2 weeks of possible exposure to neonics (the study's authors never bothered to check the dna from the pollen samples collected from the hives to make sure the bees were actually foraging on the neonic canola....) apparently the bees did ok. But where are the real life studies from Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta? Neonics have been a suspected culprit in CCD for nearly 7 years now threatening the $3 billion a year neonics industry, and you mean to tell me that the industry hasn't done any long-term exposure studies?
> 
> I'm betting that they have, and that they weren't happy with the results and so they are keeping the studies to themselves.....


----------



## BigDawg

I'm not aware of a single incidence where a beek put a new (i.e. previously unexposed to neonics) hive on a neonics crop for two weeks, and then had that hive develop CCD and die out. If you've seen a report like that, please let me know.....So therefore, testing under those parameters seems, well, pretty much useless--unless of course to want to try and show that neonics don't harm bees...

Where are the long-term, real world, studies that actually mimic the exposure levels that the hives developing CCD have been exposed to?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> But where are the real life studies from Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta? Neonics have been a suspected culprit in CCD for nearly 7 years now threatening the $3 billion a year neonics industry, and you mean to tell me that the industry hasn't done any long-term exposure studies?


Jim Lyon, gmcharlie and Barry have told us there is little to no CCD in Illinois or South Dakota and other keepers in neighboring Corn Belt States have expressed much the same on other
forums despite the fact the Corn Belt is the heart neonic country: 
Uploaded with ImageShack.com


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Dog,
Canola grows for 6 months, blooms for 3 weeks.
Corn grows for 6 months and actively produces pollen for only 8 days. 
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0128.html

sounds like you've just endorsed neonic treatments.



BigDawg said:


> I'm not aware of a single incidence where a beek put a new (i.e. previously unexposed to neonics) hive on a neonics crop for two weeks, and then had that hive develop CCD and die out. If you've seen a report like that, please let me know.....So therefore, testing under those parameters seems, well, pretty much useless--unless of course to want to try and show that neonics don't harm bees...
> 
> Where are the long-term, real world, studies that actually mimic the exposure levels that the hives developing CCD have been exposed to?


----------



## BigDawg

Talking about hives that HAVEN'T got CCD is pretty much pointless. Millions of people who smoke cigarettes don't get lung cancer, that doesn't in any way mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer......

BTW, I've seen the pro-neonics crowd state several times that there has been no CCD in Illinois--what about long term beekeeper Steve Mayes who has been looking at 55% and 60% losses over the past few years?

*"Steve Mayes said it was another bad winter for his bees.

The owner of Mackinaw Valley Apiaries said he lost 55 percent of the bees he had in 320 hives across central Illinois.

“That’s better than last year when 60 percent died,” Mayes said. Mayes said it may be coincidence, but the problems of disappearing bees came to light at about the same time that synthetic pesticides using neonicotinoid chemicals came into wider use. Citing a study by the federal government, Mayes said that exposure to the pesticide at a dose of two or three parts per billion was enough to throw off the bees.

“It doesn’t kill them, but they can’t find their way home,” he said.*

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x935162116/Local-beekeeper-drained-by-bee-shortage

That's something else the pro-neonics folks don't want to talk about--the fact that a lot of the beeks reporting CCD losses are long-time beekeepers with many years experience. These aren't newbies or hobbyists, these are people who have been working with bees for decades, and yet they are suffering major losses due to CCD. Beeks like Steve Mayes, Bret Adee, Steve Ellis, Bill Dahle, Jim Doan, the list goes on and on. Combined, these beeks have decades and decades of experience, and yet the neonics industry would like us to believe that the only problem is PPBK......

3rd generation beekeeper Bret Adee gets it:

"What's causing CCD? Experts say nobody knows. But Mr. Adee, who said he had long scorned environmentalists’ hand-wringing about such issues, said he was starting to wonder whether they had a point.

Of the “environmentalist” label, Mr. Adee said: *“I would have been insulted if you had called me that a few years ago. But what you would have called extreme — a light comes on, and you think, ‘These guys really have something. Maybe they were just ahead of the bell curve.’”*


----------



## BayHighlandBees

how do you know these aren't longtime beekeepers with hives coated with years of miticide treatments?

Nothing here points to neonics causing CCD, and nether does your smoking, PCB, and dioxin analogies


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> Jim Lyon, gmcharlie and Barry have told us there is little to no CCD in Illinois or South Dakota and other keepers in neighboring Corn Belt States have expressed much the same on other
> forums despite the fact the Corn Belt is the heart neonic country:


I think bee behavior expert Dr. Gene Robinson explains it best:

"Surveys have been done that report on the severity of bee losses by location, by state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture generates maps of how big the losses have been in different parts of the country. *There’s no strong geographic pattern. This is because CCD losses occur in places where the most commercial beekeeping occurs and commercial beekeeping in general is on wheels – beehives are trucked throughout the country for pollination purposes.*

There are several migratory routes that these hives follow. As many as two-thirds of the commercial honey bee colonies in America are moved to northern California for a period of two to three weeks just for almond pollination. CCD losses are greater in commercial beekeeping operations areas.

In addition to pathogens, parasites and poor nutrition, pesticides are also implicated. *The newer pesticides are much safer for humans. They also are being applied in ways that make them safer to humans, but they also have negative effects on beneficial insects.*"

http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/73513


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> That's something else the pro-neonics folks don't want to talk about--the fact that a lot of the beeks reporting CCD losses are long-time beekeepers with many years experience. These aren't newbies or hobbyists, these are people who have been working with bees for decades, and yet they are suffering major losses due to CCD. Beeks like Steve Mayes, Bret Adee, Steve Ellis, Bill Dahle, Jim Doan, the list goes on and on.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...epers-scientists-say-action-is-precipitous/2/
"In a bizarre political twist, in their zeal to target neonics or any chemical for that matter, the Center for Food Safety and other advocacy groups have forged pacts with some of the most notorious and worst performing commercial beekeeping operations, who believe they can ride the activist outrage to a large legal settlement."


----------



## BigDawg

Lol, and of course the industry claiming that neonics don't harm bees isn't about money, right? They're just trying to "feed the world?" Lol, umm, ok.....

I named several prominent beekeepers above who have experienced CCD and at least partially attribute CCD to neonics. Please provide your proof that those beekeepers are lying about neonics in order to get a big cash settlement.....


----------



## BayHighlandBees

ask a question to a bunch of beekeepers get a bunch of answers. It's not surprising some out there would consider neonics as a possibility. Then again they aren't scientists.

of course then there is this Randy Oliver who is a biologist and a beekeeper who was able to model CCD (as monitored by Dr Mussen):
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/


----------



## jim lyon

Thanks for the link BD: http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/73513
It's actually quite thoughtful and in my mind pretty much on the mark and which mostly contradicts everything BD has been claiming for quite some time. If neonics were the sole cause of CCD (as the title of this thread claims) then there wouldn't be such variation between bee operations and the million plus hives they constitute which summer in areas surrounded by Neonic treated crops. One must look for VARIABLES and there are many. Forage in a given year, when they are moved to summer pasturage, when they are moved back out and where bees are wintered, what type of feed they are wintered on, pollen substitues, mite levels, mite treatments, nucing/brood break practices, nosema levels, nosema treatments, pesticide/fungicide exposure, bee types, age and history of comb.....just to name some of the most prominent. To single out neonics is just refusal to see that it dosent dovetail with the overwhelming body of evidence. I would be a fool to suggest that I have never had bees suffer any detrimental effects from them but then again I have no evidence that they have either and neither do their critics, only suspicions....like the title of this thread. Look at the big picture folks, try to see it all.
i make no comment about the motives of other beekeepers except to say that anytime you choose to be included in lawsuits one must expect your motives to be questioned, rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> One must look for VARIABLES and there are many. Forage in a given year, when they are moved to summer pasturage, when they are moved back out and where bees are wintered, what type of feed they are wintered on, pollen substitues, mite levels, *mite treatments*, nucing/brood break practices, nosema levels, nosema treatments, pesticide/fungicide exposure, bee types, age and history of comb.....just to name some of the most prominent.


Bold, my emphasis, but you are right on the mark, Jim. Some are arguing the extreme but most see the evidence supporting neither due to all the variables.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

and as Dog mentioned above, he's never heard of CCD being caused by 2 - 3 weeks of exposure, but that is the normal the time that bees will get exposure to neonics in the field

Corn actively produces pollen for 8 days
canola blooms for 3 weeks


----------



## dannyidp

Richard Cryberg said:


> CCD is not caused by pesticides. Will insecticides kill bees? Of course they will. That is why they are called insecticides. Properly used do they kill any significant number of bees? Nope. No different than cars. Cars kill people. Properly used they do not kill people. With cars you follow the traffic laws. With insecticides you follow the label rules.


Richard I very much disagree with you.When CCD was first discovered I said it was gmo seeds and pesticides.Just last week on the news scientist said the cause was pesticides.

This Is a good example I have a Bee farm There is not a row crop within 15 miles of my bees and I have not had the first case of CCD.coincidence? I don't think so.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

danny,
that coincidental evidence doesn't hold up nationwide. The CCD footprint doesn't match the neonic usage footprint. there are areas with CCD that are in areas that have no row crops and in there are also thriving bees in the most heavily neonic pesticide treated areas.

CCD also comes in waves. The biggest epicenter was 2006 and 2007. It correlates to other sudden mass dieoffs in previous generations of beekeeping. In my opinion that has more of a pattern as a viral epidemic (one of the nosema viruses could be a possiblity).

If it were GMO and/or pesiticides, then in the year of record neonic treated US harvests of GMO corn, shouldn't this be a record year of CCD?


----------



## Dave Burrup

While I agree that CCD is likely a virus and has repeated through time, Nosema is not a virus. It is a parasite or fungus. Taxonimists cannot make up their minds, but it is not a virus.
Dave


----------



## BayHighlandBees

You're right. Looks like Nosema is either a micosporidian (unicellular parasite) or a fungus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosema_ceranae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosema_apis


----------

