# Stupid beekeepers - are they a cause of bee decline?



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I have just added a new podcast at http://biobees.libsyn.com/ (also on iTunes). This one is especially for new beekeepers who are about to buy their first 'nuc' - something of a cautionary tale!

Do you think that the mass movement of bees around the world has caused some of our problems?


----------



## NewbeeNnc (May 21, 2009)

buckbee said:


> Do you think that the mass movement of bees around the world has caused some of our problems?



No I think the mass movement is a result (not a cause) from all the problems that have been publicized.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I think I failed to make myself clear. 

What I meant was, has the _physical movement_ of bees around the world, i.e. the import and export of bees and queens, been one of the major causes of the problems we see in our hives?


----------



## KQ6AR (May 13, 2008)

There isn't any doubt that the diseases, & pests got into this country by movement of bees, & bee products across borders.


----------



## Wyldbee (Feb 27, 2010)

buckbee said:


> I think I failed to make myself clear.
> 
> What I meant was, has the _physical movement_ of bees around the world, i.e. the import and export of bees and queens, been one of the major causes of the problems we see in our hives?


I think it is a major contributing factor but not the entire problem behind CCD I am assuming that by the general term "problem" you are referring to CCD. MY understanding so far is limited but this is what has stuck in my head. The collapse of the bees has to do with not only one factor but many. Pesticides,IAPV,parasites and malnutrition. There is no doubt that disease is spread more widely now than ever due to our ability to travel around the world so quickly. Be it by plane, boat, train or automobile. Transmitted to people, animals or plants. We are going to always run the chance of receiving/sending unwanted pests and diseases as long as we import and export. This practice is not going to stop and no matter how well the inspectors do their jobs something will inevitably slip by. We have to find ways of successfully dealing with these problems and not buy from places that are known to be questionable and risky. When treating with medications to do it responsibly. Use the right amounts for the specified amount of time. Medicate when there is a need for medicating. For instance if we all treated ourselves prophylacticly with Tamiflu during the flu season it would eventually become in effective.

There are many factors behind the "problems" with bees and it does not rest solely in the hands of "Stupid" bee keepers.


----------



## concrete-bees (Jun 20, 2009)

not really seeing your point ???? seems off the wall really

moving bees around the world? ---- i really think its not the case, look at humans - we migrated aross the seas to get to North America, when we moved to America , it didnt start or stop the people dieing in Africa. 

if we are to look at beekeeping as it was 6000 years ago it was survival of the fitest. these days we try to save every failing hive, rather then keeping the strong. if a hive is to survive, it will survive without medicating it 

so as to wether moving bees is killing bees ......no really buying it 

think about bees as Humans, (bare with me)
if we have two people that are geneticly messed up, that have deformed organs, the inablity to learn, always getting sick, etc and we keep them alive with medicine, and lets just say they MATE....... i really think the offspring are going to be worse off then the parents. But for some odd reason we keep them around with medicine and they happen to breed, see the cycle gets worse as the generations go on 

IN BEES ITS THE SAME THING .... so .........why on earth are we saveing the weak to make more weak ????? 

people ask the question of " why is beekeeping harder these days?" 
here is the Answer to the age old question 

my grandfathers grandfather had over 1000 hives that he had only ever gotten from the wild- he only took in wild bees - never bought bees 
never had the looses we do today ....why.... because Wild bees are the survival of the fitest, they lived the winters, knew how to store food, knew how to defend a colony agents pest and desease 

today we just throw in another new brand of mite strip, to save to weak hive rather then keeping the strong hives to split from ( and i know a lot do split stong hives) but there is a lot of weak hives that throw out weak drones only to make the next batch of bees one step closer to being weak 

thats my two cents .....hope it helps


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

buckbee said:


> What I meant was, has the _physical movement_ of bees around the world, i.e. the import and export of bees and queens, been one of the major causes of the problems we see in our hives?


Your absolutely right about the americas. There would be no problems in the the hives in the americas if bees hadn't been imported in the first place.


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

here's some history on your topic:
http://www.culturaapicola.com.ar/wiki/index.php/John_Rennie

Isle of Wight Bee Disease. 
Isle of Wight bee disease, or Microsporidiosis, as it is sometimes called, is the most terrible scourge to which bees are subject. It appeared first in the Isle of Wight in 1904, and, spreading to the mainland, it gradually worked its way up northwards to Scotland and Ireland, carrying devastation wherever it appeared. So terrible is this scourge that an authority as painstaking and eminent as Mr. T. W. Cowan tells us in the British Bee Journal for March 4th, 1920, that, from carefully compiled statistics, it has been proved that about 90 per cent, of the colonies of bees that existed in Somersetshire had been destroyed by this disease; and much the same has happened in every other county. 
The origin of this disease is still very obscure. 
Regards,
Ernie


----------



## concrete-bees (Jun 20, 2009)

thing is, it that there are the same pest and problems over in Africa, Europe and Austraila as there is in America's - the problem is not the placement of bees its the genectics in the bees - 

taking a person with Aids to France does not cure the Aids. 
taking bees with mites to Russia does not cure the mite infestation 

here is my thinking on the CCD - since its always up in the air 

lets think about the problem - the bees dont come home - OK 
so a bee "knows where home is" so why not make it home ??

Bees use the sun as a compus - they are masters of angle and degree -
BUT what happens when there is a tsunami and it slows the earth by a second? then the earthquake in chili, or the earthquake in Cali 20 years ago 
they all move the earth a little bit 
but not the sun, and as the bee fly from home and goes three miles out- the angle and degree have to be right on to get back home- if its off a degree the bee would end up maybe a mile from home and be lost ???

not saying its the cause of it all but something to think about


----------



## BEES4U (Oct 10, 2007)

Here's another thought backed up with observation.
Smog can bend light enough so that a bees navagation can be off some distance. And, that was before CCD
We have lost a lot of our native pollinating insects too.
Ernie


----------



## Mike Gillmore (Feb 25, 2006)

concrete-bees said:


> moving bees around the world? ---- i really think its not the case, look at humans - we migrated aross the seas to get to North America, when we moved to America , it didnt start or stop the people dieing in Africa.


No, but it did wipe out a huge population of otherwise healthy thriving native Americans along the Mississippi River. They were exposed to new viruses in their contact with the Europeans, and having no resistance to even the most common ailments which the explorers were immune to, very rapidly became sick and it wiped out entire communities. 

Your analogy actually supports both positions I think.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

concrete-bees said:


> moving bees around the world? ---- i really think its not the case, look at humans - we migrated aross the seas to get to North America, when we moved to America , it didnt start or stop the people dieing in Africa.


Innumerable indigenous peoples have been wiped out or severely damaged by explorers introducing diseases against which they had no defences.




> think about bees as Humans, (bare with me)
> if we have two people that are geneticly messed up, that have deformed organs, the inablity to learn, always getting sick, etc and we keep them alive with medicine, and lets just say they MATE....... i really think the offspring are going to be worse off then the parents. But for some odd reason we keep them around with medicine and they happen to breed, see the cycle gets worse as the generations go on
> 
> IN BEES ITS THE SAME THING .... so .........why on earth are we saveing the weak to make more weak ?????


I have no idea what that has to do with the notion I proposed, but FWIW I agree that we should only breed from strong stock - if that is what you are saying.



> my grandfathers grandfather had over 1000 hives that he had only ever gotten from the wild- he only took in wild bees - never bought bees
> never had the looses we do today ....why.... because Wild bees are the survival of the fitest, they lived the winters, knew how to store food, knew how to defend a colony agents pest and desease


Your ancestor's bees were locally adapted and did not have to cope with insecticides, GMOs and beekeepers chucking antibiotics and miticides at them.

And I don't suppose he imported his queens from Australia.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Wyldbee said:


> I think it is a major contributing factor but not the entire problem behind CCD I am assuming that by the general term "problem" you are referring to CCD.


We don't have much in the way of CCD-like symptoms in the UK, but we do have one heck of a lot of virus problems that appear to have been imported - some possibly with varroa, but many are more recent and may well have come in with imported queens or nucs.



> We are going to always run the chance of receiving/sending unwanted pests and diseases as long as we import and export. This practice is not going to stop and no matter how well the inspectors do their jobs something will inevitably slip by.


They would stop if stupid beekeepers were persuaded or forced to stop! You can't import other animals to the USA without stringent health checks, and I believe that imports from some countries are banned regardless - so why not ban bee movements?



> There are many factors behind the "problems" with bees and it does not rest solely in the hands of "Stupid" bee keepers.


Not solely, but mainly, I suggest.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

buckbee said:


> so why not ban bee movements?


What exactly would that accomplish that folks and society would consider to be positive?

There would be large decreases in the quality and quantity of food produced to to inadequate pollenation.

Increased prices of food....think malnutrition and starvation...increased poverty.

It would not halt the spread of any disease or pathogen....it would simply slow it down some.


----------



## throrope (Dec 18, 2008)

Sorry guys, this looks like armchair research.

I haven't lost a hive yet. Last year I started a couple from splits that did not take, but both didn't have enough bees, one was an attempt at moving to a top bar from lang frames, so I'm not counting them. I didn't check my from last summer yet and hope it survived.

My five Langstroth hives don't travel, I treat every fall and make sure they go into winter fat and happy. They are all from the same "swarm" stock, yet every year one becomes a hot hive. Last fall I wasn't happy with the mite counts overall, but one was completely overrun. Last year I did queenless splits for swarm prevention and later found the dreaded small hive beetle. I didn't think they were as north at PA and some think a queenless hive's pheromones attract them.

My point is that even though my hives are from the same lineage, stay in the same place, get treated alike, each has different results. Add to that a 3 mile forage radius and influential factors can be a different as each home in our neighborhood.

I can accept that schlepping hives from one end of the country to the other as part of feeding our population can contribute to difficulties since we increase the factors my hives deal with by an order of magnitude, but we all originally came from Africa.

50 years ago we had juvenile delinquents. When I was growing up hyperactive kids were helped with Methylphenidate. Now 1 in 20 are are diagnosed with ADHD including myself after my son. Our Friends' genius son with OCD is a handful, but now has a chance to change the world. Doctor's are now just scratching the surface of autism after telling mothers "it must have been something you did." 90% of blindness is prevented by treating a newborn's eyes with ointment as required now by law. Our world is complex and the more we understand, the more we become aware of how what we need to learn keeps growing.

One commonality among beekeepers I perceive is that we do what worked for us. The trap is to think that when another does something different, that is the cause of their problem.

I think we can help the bees help us through hands on work and analysis from all parts of the community, education, unrestricted communication (like you find here), and a disposition to contribution.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JPK said:


> What exactly would that accomplish that folks and society would consider to be positive?


1. Beekeepers could raise locally-adapted bees, that would be more likely to thrive in particular regions.
2. There would be no direct transfer of disease, pests and bad genetics through the post.
3. It would put a geographical barrier in the way of any future virus outbreaks.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Buckbee, it wouldn't accomplish any of the things you state because the fact of the matter remains that even bodies of water have not served to isolate a wide variety of species, it only slows them down.

And furthermore, in order to accomplish what you are advocating you would necessarily have to shut down international and interstate travel and commerce.

Have you given any consideration to the other points I raised like decreases in quality and quantity of food? Increases in prices as a result, increased poverty, hunger and starvation?

Stone age here we come.....


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JPK said:


> Buckbee, it wouldn't accomplish any of the things you state because the fact of the matter remains that even bodies of water have not served to isolate a wide variety of species, it only slows them down.


The Pacific and Atlantic oceans were very effective barriers against Varroa. Mites reached the USA through the post - not by flying there!



> And furthermore, in order to accomplish what you are advocating you would necessarily have to shut down international and interstate travel and commerce.


No, just the import and export of bees. Have you listened to the podcast? That is what I am talking about - not stopping all trade!


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

*"Stupid beekeepers - are they a cause of bee decline?"* 

To answer the question literally: Of course. Keeping bees requires a modicum of intelligence and if a beekeeper behaves stupidly, then that beekeeper will likely see a decline.

On the other hand, if the question is actually meant to ask if beekeepers as a group are stupid and is that stupidity leading to a decline in bee populations, we must ask what bee populations are were discussing, and where? 

"There are nearly 20,000 known species of bees in seven to nine recognized families, though many are undescribed and the actual number is probably higher. ..." -- Wikipedia.

We hear that there are problems with other species besides the honey bee. While some of these problems may be related to disease and pest problems in managed honeybees, I suspect that the majority are not, and are actually environmental. 

Many of these environmental problems are related to overpopulation due to the human population boom caused by the warming of the globe over the past ten thousand or so years, and the consequent advancement of technologies which has only accelerated and accelerated since a critical mass was achieved several centuries ago. Only two centuries ago we were trying to build a locomotive that would reliably exceed ten miles per hour. Almost a half-century ago, man walked on the moon.

Human activity has moved just about everything imaginable everywhere, breaking down the natural barriers to movement of pests and diseases and is constantly also spreading novel chemistries worldwide. Ever wonder what something simple like the reformulation of gasoline or diesel additives could conceivably do worldwide and how quickly without anyone knowing?

So, is it that beekeeping activities are causing more than the expected share of the changes, both in honey bees and the many other species? I would suggest not. 

And, for that matter, if there is an implied suggestion that commercial beekeepers the only ones moving bees around? I can assure you that more queens travel around the world in the pockets and luggage of hobby beekeepers than with commercial beekeepers. If you are a bee inspector long enough, you learn some amazing things. 

Add to that the bio-terrorism that undoubtedly goes on and the accidental transport of all sorts of bugs and plants on ships, and I have to say that no, beekeepers, stupid or not, are not the principal cause of bee decline, assuming that an actual and permanent decline is actually in progress.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Allen Dick said:


> And, for that matter, if there is an implied suggestion that commercial beekeepers the only ones moving bees around? I can assure you that more queens travel around the world in the pockets and luggage of hobby beekeepers than with commercial beekeepers.


According to official sources, 100,000 queens were imported into Canada last year, 60,000 of them into Alberta. 

I don't think amateurs could achieve that.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I think most people understand what I was saying. Do you need me to spell it out for you, or are you just being cute?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Not sure what you are getting at - maybe you had better spell it out!


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I was referring to _unsupervised_ smuggling of queen bees across geographical boundaries worldwide where serious and unusual risks are known to exist, not legal and supervised transport across imaginary lines between geographically continuous regions. 

In particular, I had in mind the 'innocent' and 'unofficial' private imports by hobby beekeepers of queens from Asia, of which I became aware over the years.


----------



## brushmouth (Jan 17, 2010)

buckbee said:


> According to official sources, 100,000 queens were imported into Canada last year, 60,000 of them into Alberta.
> 
> I don't think amateurs could achieve that.


And just how would you get an early start on splits etc, given the short season?
It would appear to me that outside help is needed, much in the same
manner as in the northern states where we depend on the southern and western supply of stock. 

Also I fail to understand your use of the term stupid in your addressing both yourself and the whole of us who are hobby or commercial beekeepers.? 
BM


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Allen Dick said:


> I was referring to _unsupervised_ smuggling of queen bees across geographical boundaries worldwide where serious and unusual risks are known to exist, not legal and supervised transport across imaginary lines between geographically continuous regions.
> 
> In particular, I had in mind the 'innocent' and 'unofficial' private imports by hobby beekeepers of queens from Asia, of which I became aware over the years.


I get it. And the problem we have in the UK is that we are a small island with a lot of beekeepers packed into a relatively small space. You have relatively few people spread over a huge area by comparison. We have bee breeders who are importing queens from places that are known to have SHB, and sooner or later - probably sooner - a few SHB eggs are going to pass unnoticed inside a queen cage, and they will hatch and fly and in no time at all they will be all over the UK. That is the real and present danger I was addressing in my podcast.

And of course, we have the equally stupid beekeepers who go on holiday and carry a queen or two home in their shirt pocket.

My point is that stupid beekeepers are going to be the death of beekeeping: if we do nothing about the greedy, stupid and irresponsible beekeepers who spread this stuff around the world, caring about nothing but their short-term profit, the bees will be gone.


----------



## Dale Hodges (Jul 13, 2007)

In the 60's and 70's anyone could keep bees....stupid or not. It was a different time for beekeepers. We use to routinely make 2 frame splits and walk away, come back in three weeks and pick up hives well on their way. no SHB, no mites, AFB was our biggest problem, and it wasn't that big a problem. What I've seen is beekeeping getting harder and harder over time. I'm spending more time "going through" hives than ever. My point is, this didn"t happen over night. It was one problem being added to a pile of problems. "death by a thousand cuts". I guess its human to look for one answer, but the answer.....if we ever come up with one....will probably fill a small book. Just an old timers opinion.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Allen Martens said:


> Your absolutely right about the americas. There would be no problems in the the hives in the americas if bees hadn't been imported in the first place.


Right you are Allen. Just different problems.

If Europeans had stayed on their side of the Atlantic we wouldn't have some of the problems that we have had in the last 500 some years either.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

brushmouth said:


> And just how would you get an early start on splits etc, given the short season?
> It would appear to me that outside help is needed, much in the same
> manner as in the northern states where we depend on the southern and western supply of stock.


Well you know, this may be hard to swallow, but there are places in the world where beekeeping - especially commercial beekeeping - really doesn't fit with the local ecology, or the climate. Nobody has an inalienable right to keep bees in places where they can only survive with artificial support. There may be reasons that bees failed to survive on the north American continent millions of years ago, that we still don't understand, and may never understand. 



> Also I fail to understand your use of the term stupid in your addressing both yourself and the whole of us who are hobby or commercial beekeepers.?


For the sake of clarity, I was not calling ALL beekeepers stupid. I was - and am - calling stupid the ones who are endangering the entire species by doing stupid things - like importing bees from places that have pest and disease problems and known genetic issues.

I happen to think that importing bees from Australia and Argentina (among other places) into Britain is virtually guaranteed to bring us trouble - big time - and it is being done for the short-term profit of the few, but we will all end up paying for it.

If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, please listen to the podcast here http://biobees.libsyn.com


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't disagree with you, Buckbee, but I suspect that am far more optimistic. I have faith in the bees, and in people.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Allen Dick said:


> I don't disagree with you, Buckbee, but I suspect that am far more optimistic. I have faith in the bees, and in people.


Well, I have faith in bees. They don't suffer from greed, they don't make bombs and they don't vote politicians into office!


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

concrete here is another thought. What if the bee is exposed to insecticides that eliminate insects by affecting their immune systema and mental structures? Thisis th way neonictinoids work. Now our bees have fungus in their gut, cannt find home and we are eating tis stuffin our food(its systemic so its in the plant and for example in potatoes)But dont worr Bud will refute this. Hopefully I wont ger alzheimers on d...........a.............what did I mea......oh well.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

buckbee said:


> Do you think that the mass movement of bees around the world has caused some of our problems?


Sure, some of them. Any time you mess w/ anything you get unintended results. But what is the alternative? To not do anything because you don't know what the unintended consequences will be?

"There are things we know and things we don't know and things that we don't know that we don't know."

If we stay at home and only play w/ our own, we will die. But, eventually we all die. What should we do in the mean time?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Well, I have faith in bees. They don't suffer from greed, they don't make bombs and they don't vote politicians into office!


We don't _actually_ know that, although we are pretty sure about the bombs part -- so far. (There are rumours, though of a hush-hush Manhattan Project among the illegal bees in -- where else? -- Manhattan). Check out your latest "Bee Enquirer", Errr, I mean "Bee Culture". Byline? R*ss C*****

What can I say? Some of my best friends are people.


----------



## Maine_Beekeeper (Mar 19, 2006)

*Peanut Gallery*

Buckbee et al: 
Calling beekeepers stupid is inflammatory at best and absolutely insulating at worst. Beekeepers need bad attitude like we need a hole in the head.

What have you been eating for the past few weeks? Only things that are available grown naturally in England during the past month or so? I doubt it. 

Bashing beekeepers, even to other beekeepers is inappropriate in this or any other forum. 

When you are willing to give up your access to anything that is out of season in your own climate, I'll be happy to support your big talk. For now, let's talk about realistic ways to improve colony health via good nutrition, less need for migration (improve local honey prices/demand) and better IPM strategies. But accept that we need migratory beekeepers to produce the food that we all eat. 

We beekeepers all need to coexist but I'm not going to sit by and listen to a bunch of bull ****** cosmic crap that distracts from the real needs of the bees - which is good clean healthy shelter, clean continuous forage and a hive which works with the dynamics of the colony. Many migratory beekeepers are trying to find this balance. 

Best to all and your bees - 
-E.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*



Allen Dick said:


> Can't we all just get along?


Sure, "Rodney", but will we?


----------



## Maine_Beekeeper (Mar 19, 2006)




----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Erin, QUIT MOVING THOSE BEES AROUND. Don't you know you could be spreading CCD? 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. The Thread heading may have been a poor choice of words, or is it werds?


----------



## Tom G. Laury (May 24, 2008)

*Bee Decline*

Bee Decline Collapse is with out a doubt the leading cause of stupid beekeepers.

I should know.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

I listened to a speech by Dewey Caron today. He attributed 1/4 of CCD to beekeepers/management. The other 3/4 to varroa, pesticides, fungicides, nosema etc.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

sqkcrk said:


> Sure, some of them. Any time you mess w/ anything you get unintended results. But what is the alternative? To not do anything because you don't know what the unintended consequences will be?


No. The alternative is to think through the consequences of what you plan to do, in the light of similar situations in other contexts, and then to adjust your actions accordingly. 

It's called 'intelligent behaviour'.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*



Maine_Beekeeper said:


> Buckbee et al:
> Calling beekeepers stupid is inflammatory at best and absolutely insulating at worst. Beekeepers need bad attitude like we need a hole in the head.


For some beekeepers, a hole in the head is the only way they will get air to their brains.



> What have you been eating for the past few weeks? Only things that are available grown naturally in England during the past month or so? I doubt it.


Doubt all you like - we have a thriving local food economy here, and I mostly choose to eat seasonal food. 



> Bashing beekeepers, even to other beekeepers is inappropriate in this or any other forum.


If you had taken the trouble to actually listen to my arguments, you would know that I'm not criticizing all beekeepers - only the ones whose behaviour is endangering the whole future of beekeeping.



> ...let's talk about realistic ways to improve colony health via good nutrition, less need for migration (improve local honey prices/demand) and better IPM strategies. But accept that we need migratory beekeepers to produce the food that we all eat.


For bees, 'good nutrition' means variety - biodiversity - which you will not find in a massive monoculture of almonds, blueberries or anything else. Bees did not evolve on a single plant, but many thousands of differnt plants. If you want to improve bee nutrition, you need to change the entire way agriculture is practised in the USA. 



> We beekeepers all need to coexist but I'm not going to sit by and listen to a bunch of bull ****** cosmic crap....


I see your idea of civilized discussion seems to include racist insults. At least, that's the way it translates here.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*



buckbee said:


> If you had taken the trouble to actually listen to my arguments, you would know that I'm not criticizing all beekeepers - only the ones whose behaviour is endangering the whole future of beekeeping.


Thats your opinion without any empirical evidence to support it and clearly most folks that have posted responses disagree with your opinion.

Calling folks Stupid or telling them they need a hole in their head or are racist is not helping you win supporters of your opinion.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Is it my imagination or has there been a trend lately where some of our beekeeping brethren from the UK seem to want to dictate to others the "Right" way to keep bees to the exclusion of any other management method?

Clearly there are many ways to skin a cat and many of them are comparable to one another in terms of overall efficacy.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*



JPK said:


> Thats your opinion without any empirical evidence to support it and clearly most folks that have posted responses disagree with your opinion.


I have no problem with other people expressing their opinion, with or without empirical evidence to support them. I would say that most of the opinions expressed here and on other forums come under that category. 

However, there is plenty of evidence that importing bees has brought trouble in its wake: just take varroa as one example.



> Calling folks Stupid or telling them they need a hole in their head or are racist is not helping you win supporters of your opinion.


My intention is to provoke discussion and get people thinking about what they do and why they do it. And I would never call anyone racist without empirical, i.e. observational evidence. If I have mis-translated his remark, please correct me.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JPK said:


> Is it my imagination or has there been a trend lately where some of our beekeeping brethren from the UK seem to want to dictate to others the "Right" way to keep bees to the exclusion of any other management method?


It doesn't take much to revive the old colonialist spirit, does it? 

Forget where I am from and let's discuss the issues. And nobody is trying to dictate anything to anyone - I want to get these things out in the open and have people look at them.

I have spent time in the USA and I am a great admirer of the American pioneering and independent spirit - we could do with more of it over here, frankly - and my main target in the podcast was, in fact, certain dealers who are importing queens into the UK, and selling them with bees as 'nucs' to beginners, whereas they are in fact 'packages' as you know them - just a bunch of random bees with a queen who is not their mother.

One dealer in particular is selling nucs with Buckfast queens, quoting (actually mis-quoting) from Brother Adam in their sales talk, and not telling people that these queens are imported.

Now you know as well as I do that Buckies are fine - so long as they remain Buckies - but when they get out-crossed with some passing mongrel drones, a number of them are going to turn nasty - really nasty in my experience, having worked at Buckfast Abbey with the remainder of Bro. Adam's bees.

This dealer is selling nucs at staggering prices - the equivalent of about US$250 - to beginners who know nothing, and who are going to get a nasty surprise in their second season after a swarm or a supercedure takes their original queen and leaves them with a fierce hybrid.

Alongside that, consider the fact that we are a small country with a LOT of beekeepers, pretty much all within SHB flying distance of each other. How long do you think it would be between the first accidental import of SHB eggs and the entire country being affected?

Of course, there are issues on that side of the Atlantic with bee movements, and to pretend otherwise is simply being blind to the evidence and immune to common sense. But we have to look at this as a global issue now: it's about the long-term survival of honeybees, not just about the self-interests of commercial beekeepers.


----------



## bigbearomaha (Sep 3, 2009)

Heya,

Just because I am bored, I will toss my two cents in here...

I am personally of the opinion that transporting bees has a less than positive effect on them. Especially when we are talking established hives with drawn comb and queen is around for awhile. Why, vibrations for starters. Bees are very sensitive to vibration. so is wax for that matter. Yes, frames help prevent comb collapse, but not entirely.

All in all, there are more things that can go wrong with transporting bees than not. it is amazing, I think, that bees survive long transport at all.

however, I am not going to demonize or be unduly harsh on the people who do transport bees. People have many reasons for doing what they do, some out of ignorance, some out of self interest, some out of desperation. some because they are doing what they really believe is right. 

now, not to just add to or continue on with a problem, I will offer some of the things I do in an effort to provide a solution.

I do not buy bees. in packages or nucs. Because I consider myself a 'conservation' bee technician, I get plenty of calls from homeowners and public officials to come remove bees from walls, yards, garages, porches, etc where the fear of people and their need to keep insects out of an human habitation insect free.

I only transport bees in absence of established comb. for example, after a cutout or swarm collection or a split to alleviate congestion in a hive. In a situation as those, the bees are unfortunately already stressed, transporting them will likely only minimally compound that stress.

I make every effort to only move a colony once. so if I have a local pollination contract, I bring in bees from one of those situations I described above and hopefully arrange to keep them permanently placed in that location. That's an optimistic and ideal agreement that doesn't always happen, but the effort is made. Yes, this really applies more solely to small scale pollination needs.

I think it behooves us as people who work with honey bees to keep civility foremost about our discussions as it is important for the recruiting and education of new and more people who want to work with bees to learn that there is indeed more than one way to accomplish a task and that it need not be a polarized arena which is uncomfortable to engage in.

enjoy the bees

Big Bear


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

buckbee said:


> One dealer in particular is selling nucs with Buckfast queens, quoting (actually mis-quoting) from Brother Adam in their sales talk, and not telling people that these queens are imported.


So what.....report them to the UK's version of Consumer Protection Agency and move on.

This is a non issue



buckbee said:


> Now you know as well as I do that Buckies are fine - so long as they remain Buckies - but when they get out-crossed with some passing mongrel drones, a number of them are going to turn nasty - really nasty in my experience, having worked at Buckfast Abbey with the remainder of Bro. Adam's bees.


Then you should also know that Buckfasts are already "Mongrels" and that they were bred from a number of different strains of bees for specific behaviors like hygene, gentle etc.

It has nothing to do with interbreeding but rather interbreeding with bees that have traits you don't want.



buckbee said:


> This dealer is selling nucs at staggering prices - the equivalent of about US$250 - to beginners who know nothing


So what, that only tells me that you have a high number of consumers that are too daft to do their homework....if enough people are willing to pay that price then thats what the going price will become....simple supply and demand.



buckbee said:


> Alongside that, consider the fact that we are a small country with a LOT of beekeepers, pretty much all within SHB flying distance of each other. How long do you think it would be between the first accidental import of SHB eggs and the entire country being affected?


Then advocate to your local government to step up regulation on imports to the UK.....don't tell the rest of the world that we need to do the same thing you want to do and effectively shut down interstate and international commerce

You cannot stop the migration/movement of species....even the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans can't stop it.....if that were the case then the Volcanoes we know as the Hawaiian Islands would be barren rocks instead of the lush tropical paradises (with bees) that they are.

SHB is not the boogie man you're making it out to be, its a hassle but not the end of the world.

Without international commerce in food and other goods quality of life would be a shadow of what it is today, there may be folks like yourself that wish to isolate themselves and limit themselves to only locally grown or produced goods but I'm not one of them nor are MOST people



buckbee said:


> Of course, there are issues on that side of the Atlantic with bee movements, and to pretend otherwise is simply being blind to the evidence and immune to common sense. But we have to look at this as a global issue now: it's about the long-term survival of honeybees, not just about the self-interests of commercial beekeepers.


Of course there are issues, but folks that keep spewing this nonsense about how bees are endangered are off their rockers in my opinion as there is absolutely no evidence to support such an opinion.

I'm not an advocate of removing controls on importation of livestock but I'm also not about to stick my head in the sand and scream that we're all going to die unless we close our borders, eliminate cars and force everyone to only eat produce and products grown within x number of miles of their home. I respect your CHOICE to do so but please don't preach that everyone should do the same.

One thing that IS clear is that without migratory beekeeping we would produce a LOT less food, prices would increase (decrease in supply v same demand) and as a result poverty and starvation would increase.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

There are way too many adjectives being thrown about in this thread. The title is where it started. Posts will begin to disappear if this continues.
"Stupid beekeepers - are they a cause of bee decline?"

Stupid? Perhaps uninformed or naive, but not stupid since this phrase is tied directly to new beekeepers in the podcast.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

JPK said:


> One thing that IS clear is that without migratory beekeeping we would produce a LOT less food, prices would increase (decrease in supply v same demand) and as a result poverty and starvation would increase.


Maybe this applies to some areas but it is no way clear and certainly not the case for the whole world.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

beenovice said:


> Maybe this applies to some areas but it is no way clear and certainly not the case for the whole world.


Ah, there's the rub.

There are several regions of the world that produce a disproportionate volume of food without which many people in other countries would be hard pressed to come up with basic foodstuffs

California is one of the places, The US Midwest is one of those places, Florida (Oranges etc) is one of those places, the Ukraine and a number of other regions, many of which are dependent upon migratory pollenation in order to not only increase the Quantity but the Quality of foodstuffs produced.


----------



## concrete-bees (Jun 20, 2009)

you know Barry is right - he started this tread just to pull chains - and then made a plug at his website - on a page that HE wrote -- well done!!!

but like Barry said - there are no "stupid" beekeepers - stateing that one beekeeper is stupid is stating that you no longer wish to gain information from others since you have gotten it all right every year - 

i give a high five to every keeper new or old - keep up what we do best !!!!


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

JPK said:


> Ah, there's the rub.
> 
> There are several regions of the world that produce a disproportionate volume of food without which many people in other countries would be hard pressed to come up with basic foodstuffs
> 
> California is one of the places, The US Midwest is one of those places, Florida (Oranges etc) is one of those places, the Ukraine and a number of other regions, many of which are dependent upon migratory pollenation in order to not only increase the Quantity but the Quality of foodstuffs produced.


Yeah, just like I said. It applies to some areas. But it is not a rule and certainly not as "doomsday" as you pointed out  

The majority of crops that need pollination is pollinated by simple couple of hives operations that are scattered all over the area. Those provide the best service and are of equal or maybe even higher importance for overall planet food production. We of course need both, migratory with hundreds and hobbyists with 3 hives. I am just saying that hobbyists are positioned more strategically and provide better pollination service overall. 

I would not like to go into the debate how you provide food for the whole planet  

It would be good to know what impact on environment and food productions would be if we take all migratory beekeepers out one year and then all hobbyists next year and compare on global scale. I am pretty sure there would be bigger impact if we take all "hobby hives" out .... I may be wrong of course. 

Tell me... how many hives in US are kept by professional migratory beekeepers and how many by hobbyists ?


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

concrete-bees said:


> !


Of course there are stupid beekeepers. Stupid are those who put antibiotics into the hive. This is still practice all over the world....and it is just one thing for example. What kind of information I can get from those beekeepers who use fishy practice putting antibiotics into the hive. 
Like in every hobby or business there is a lot of stupidity. Why would beekeepers be excluded ?


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

My oh my


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Beenovice, a simple search on google will answer many of the questions you asked, please feel free to start here if you're interested in finding answers to your questions

http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=17177


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

This is turning into an ignorance contest and to me it looks like a close race.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

beenovice said:


> Of course there are stupid beekeepers. Stupid are those who put antibiotics into the hive. This is still practice all over the world....and it is just one thing for example. What kind of information I can get from those beekeepers who use fishy practice putting antibiotics into the hive.
> Like in every hobby or business there is a lot of stupidity. Why would beekeepers be excluded ?


Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which you would justify the use of antibiotics with Bees?

Do you take the same approach to other livestock or your family?


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Let's not get off on a tangent. My comment was about making a direct connection between a beginner beekeeper and "stupid." I think a poor word choice.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Barry said:


> Stupid? Perhaps uninformed or naive, but not stupid since this phrase is tied directly to new beekeepers in the podcast.


Absolutely not true. I used the word *only* to refer to bee breeders who recklessly import queens from countries with disease and pest problems. 

Now I see that people here are somehow conflating this with migratory beekeeping, which is a separate issue and which I have not even mentioned.

From where I sit, the fact that US beekeepers now have to depend largely on migratory work to stay in business is a direct result of globalization. Cheap imports of honey from China undermined your honey prices (it's happening here too), which forced you out of honey production and into pollination work - am I right or wrong? That's how it has been reported here, at least, and that has been the message of at least a couple of documentaries about US beekeeping shown on British TV during the last 6 months.

The fact that you have a massive almond monoculture in California that is dependent on bees for pollination is something that you now have to find a way of dealing with, which is going to be a challenge, given CCD. 

I'm not saying that migratory beekeeping is right or wrong - you have to do what you have to do to stay in business - but nobody can claim that it is in any way 'natural' or 'good for bees'.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> I'm not saying that migratory beekeeping is right or wrong - you have to do what you have to do to stay in business - but nobody can claim that it is in any way 'natural' or 'good for bees'.

Actually, I do say that migratory beekeeping can indeed be _very_ 'good for bees'. 

Think about a little. I'm hearing far too much unfounded opinion and wild generalizations -- and too little evidence of serious and informed thought.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

I'm fascinated. Please explain your reasoning.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Gee. It seems really obvious to me, but here we go. I'll try to keep it very simple.

A beekeeper has hives in an area where they only have one nectar flow or there is a bad drought, so he moves them to where they have something to eat and maybe even thrive. 

That spot is pretty good for a while, but then the crops are changed to something that does not support bees, so again they are moved to a selected location that has things bees need to prosper.

Later, the beekeeper hears that the farmers there are going to spray some really nasty stuff, so in spite of a full bloom and incoming nectar, he picks the bees up and moves them to another spot where they again thrive. 

Maybe the beekeeper, in spite of reading all the wisdom dispensed so freely on Beesource, or perhaps because of it, has had bad luck with wintering, so he moves them to a location where they winter well and maybe even can reproduce.

Even the anarchist moved his bees south this year.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

buckbee said:


> Absolutely not true. I used the word *only* to refer to bee breeders who recklessly import queens from countries with disease and pest problems.


I apologize. I went back and listened again. You do limit the term to commercial. I still feel that the use of the word comes across as arrogant and divisive.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

JPK said:


> Beenovice, a simple search on google will answer many of the questions you asked, please feel free to start here if you're interested in finding answers to your questions
> 
> http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=17177


Oh my .... that article is exactly what I am saying in this thread. 

It does not support your theory that without migratory beekeeping we would produce a LOT less food. That link has nothing like that there. But please give me relevant data to support your claim. 
Go do your homework. Get data how many hives are kept by hobbyists and sideliners and how many by commercial migratory beekeepers and calculate those 153bn in to get an idea what would make more impact on food production and environment. 



JPK said:


> Are you saying that there are no circumstances under which you would justify the use of antibiotics with Bees?
> 
> Do you take the same approach to other livestock or your family?



Use of antibiotics in beekeeping is long time forbidden in this part of the world. Pretty obvious why, don't you think ? 

Use of antibiotics in any food production is simply stupid and dangerous. 
You may not agree though....


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

beenovice said:


> Oh my .... that article is exactly what I am saying in this thread.



You should re-read the article and note the impact on fruits, vegetables and other highly desirable staples



> The consequence of pollinator decline on the well being of consumers, taken here in its economic sense, was calculated based on different price elasticities of demand. The price elasticity represents the effects of price change on consumer purchase, that is, the percent drop in the amount purchased following a price increase of 1%. In our study, we assumed that a realistic value for the price-elasticities would be between -0.8 and -1.5 (for a value of -0.8, the consumer would buy 0.8% less of the product when its price increases by 1%). *Under these hypotheses, the loss of consumer surplus would be between €190 and €310 billion in 2005*.





> *From the standpoint of the stability of world food production, the results indicate that for three crop categories – namely fruits, vegetables and stimulants – the situation would be considerably altered following the complete loss of insect pollinators because world production would no longer be enough to fulfil the needs at their current levels. Net importers, like the European Community, would especially be affected.*


Now, granted, we're not facing a total loss of pollenators but there's a reason why fruit and vegetable farmer actively seek out and pay for pollenation....its because the result is larger yields of higher quality produce.



> Three main crop categories (following FAO terminology) were particularly concerned; fruits and vegetable were especially affected with a loss estimated at €50 billion each, followed by edible oilseed crops with €39 billion. The impact on stimulants (coffee, cocoa…), nuts and spices was less, at least in economic terms.



Use of antibiotics in beekeeping is long time forbidden in this part of the world. Pretty obvious why, don't you think ? 



beenovice said:


> Use of antibiotics in any food production is simply stupid and dangerous.
> You may not agree though....


Animals like people get sick from time to time, do you put family members or a cow down for a bout of bronchitis or do you treat the acute episode and move on?

Most of the organic farmer I know do exactly that....either the vet comes out or they cart the cow to the vet and use modern medicine to save the cow....once the cow is off antibiotics then they return to normal use (milk etc).

You unfortunately fail to make a distinction between the prophylatic treatment (questionable overuse) and the necessary occasional use.

The former in my personal opinion is unnecessary and overkill and the latter acceptable....I however am not going to criticize others for doing what I choose not to do.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

The thing is that antibiotics in beekeeping are banned here for some time now. Obviously there is a reason for this. Go search a little. Antibiotics use in other "farming industries" is pretty much strict. We certainly came a long way since 15 years ago  
I don't see any reason why you would have to put antibiotics into the beehive....

As far as article you posted I don't know what you are trying to prove or say here. Nowhere the article speaks about commercial migratory beekeepers...only about bees and other pollinators....

Now go calculate the numbers of hobbyists and sideliners and their hives vs comm. migratory operators and their hives, take into account position of the hives and tell me which is the one we "could" live without or which is the one that provides better pollination service of this planet. 

You should also reread each post of mine from the one I replied to your statement....read carefully, you might misunderstood what I was saying since english is not my first language..


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

beenovice said:


> I don't see any reason why you would have to put antibiotics into the beehive....


Antibiotics are commonly used to treat foulbrood.



beenovice said:


> As far as article you posted I don't know what you are trying to prove or say here. Nowhere the article speaks about commercial migratory beekeepers...only about bees and other pollinators....


This is true but if one takes a look at medium and large scale agriculture you find that many of these producers generate a very large % of the food that makes it to market.

When you look at where the pollinaltion comes from you find that overwhelmingly its not from Johnny or Sally with 1-3 hives in their back yards its the big commercial guy with 800 or more colonies.



beenovice said:


> Now go calculate the numbers of hobbyists and sideliners and their hives vs comm. migratory operators and their hives


There are no statistics on this in the states as there is no requirement to register in MOST states.

Clearly though I think enough people will corroborate the fact that the vast majority of hobbyists will do it for a couple of years and quit....if they don't quit then they keep a couple of colonies that will provide some pollenation for their garden and neighbors but they certainly do not provide pollination for anywhere near the amount of food consumed by their neighbors over the course of a year......its the big guys that cart their bees to the Blueberries, Almonds, Oranges, Sunflowers, Squash season after season, year after year that are responsible for the high quality and quantity of produce that we've come to expect to see on supermarket shelves every day.

And I totally agree with Allen, migratory beekeeping CAN be good for bees.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

If migratory practices are so bad, why am I buying bees from a migratory beekeeper that took the bees to a warmer place to multiply? By the reasoning presented by some, the hobbyist who claim to do everything better, should be the ones providing the replacement bees. Instead, I usually see them every spring buying replacement packages. 

Allen Dick - I concure with your thoughts.

Roland


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

We may be comparing apples to oranges here.
Beenovice, you're in Slovakia... I don't know how many hives the large commercial beekeepers in Slovakia run. Or even if you have large commercial beekeepers. 

Here in the southeast corner of the state of Missouri is one commercial beekeeper who runs 10,000 (that's right, ten thousand) colonies for pollination. He works crops in Missouri, Arkansas, and probably another state or two adjacent to his home base. There are a lot of people being fed by commercial pollination.

And that commercial beekeeper isn't the largest in the country. I've heard of some in the north that run 25-50,000 colonies. There is simply no way, in this country, that sideliners or hobby beekeepers could fill that need for pollenation. 
Regards,
Steven


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

The beef and dairy farmers around here make hay from alfalfa and clover. They buy seed and plant fields of alfalfa and clover to make hay on.

The guys growing alfalfa and clover for seed production are pollinated by migratory beekeepers. The hobbyists don't have sufficient hives locally to get higher seed yields.

If it wasn't for migratory beekeepers, you wouldn't be eating beef, horsemeat, lamb/mutton, or drinking milk. Other meats like pork and chicken would be much more expensive due to higher demand since folk's meat choices were limited.

It has only been since mass migratory beekeeping that meat has become a regular part of our diets. How many cultures ate primarily beets, turnips, potatoes, etc. during the wintertime, and fresh garden veggies in the summer?


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

First. In my personal opinion! Treating for foulbrood with antibiotics is just stupid. Like I said, in our part of the world it's actually forbidden and if they catch you, you are screwed.

Have I anywhere stated that migratory beekeeping is bad or anything or that you shouldn't drive bees to pollinate crops ?. Of course I didn't. 

Here is some data : http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/dept/abf.html

I am not talking only about food. Talking about the whole freaking ecosystem and that is just what the link posted by JPK talks about also if you read it.

Really, there is no data that clearly states what and how much as far as I can see. Regarding this matter there is only our subjective feeling what and how much gets pollinated by who, so I will leave it at that.

Btw...StevenG... it cleary states in my location that I am not from Slovakia  
We do not have any real migratory pollination business as you do overseas and still produce crops, milk. Probably because our country is small and there are hundreds of hives in each square mile or two  We are really packed but do have some beekeepers in thousands...majority of course are with less than 40 and those provide for majority of pollination. 

I still think that on global scale small operations together provide better pollination service than few huge ones.


----------



## hoodswoods (May 15, 2009)

Countryboy - you bring up a point, but also a question. My family lost our Missouri cattle operation in the early 70's because the glut of Russian wheat drove American prices beyond the ability to recoup profit-from-sale above the cost-of-operation.

I would be curious to find out if the current cost of clover and alfalfa seed is subsidized, or would it be cheaper to buy seed from - say- China? Our migratory operations travels many thousands of miles, but I haven't heard of trans Atlantic of Pacific operations.

When I can't buy a wood screw manufatured in America, or Canada, or the UK tells a lot where our global priorities lie (all of us).

Until everyone competes on a level playing field with regard to manufacturing costs and quality (or demands it), it will always depend on cost & availability at the corporate supplier level vs quality or some other intrinsic value.

I can understand how those from countries other than the US might be driven to purchase (stupidly?) from the cheapest supplier - it is hard for us in the US to comprehend purchasing cheap bees from... China, when we have so many local choices at competative prices - but we do buy non-American made screws.

No Chinese baby food, painted toys or dry wall for us - oops.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_We do not have any real migratory pollination business as you do overseas and still produce crops, milk. _

Please tell me about this 'production' of crops and milk. The average Slovenian farm is 5 hectares. That is about 12 acres. 

This is known as subsistence farming. Your farms are too small for production farming. You have very little surplus to export.

In 2007, the average American farm was 449 acres (180 hectares). Please keep in mind America controls almost HALF of WORLD grain exports. Our average farm is 37 times larger than your average farm.

_majority of course are with less than 40 and those provide for majority of pollination. _

What crops do they pollinate? Anything other than apples?

_I would be curious to find out if the current cost of clover and alfalfa seed is subsidized, or would it be cheaper to buy seed from - say- China? _

I don't know if it is subsidized or not. American ag production still dwarfs Chinese. They don't have the large farm machinery we have. I'm pretty sure the Dakotas and parts of Canada supply a lot of the hayseed we use.


----------



## StevenG (Mar 27, 2009)

Beenovice, my apologies! :doh: I was working off my memory of your locale, and obviously messed up.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Slovenia is where Carniolan bees come from.

It has a land area comparable to Massachusetts, which is the 7th smallest state in the USA. About half of Slovenia is covered in forests.

Ted Turner is supposed to own about 2 million acres.

Slovenia has 785,000 hectares of agricultural land. That is roughly 2 million acres.

To put this in perspective, one landowner in America owns as much land as ALL the agricultural land in Slovenia.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Countryboy : 

Enough milk for export that's for sure. Bees here pollinate exactly the same crops as in US. But what is this comparison now ? We have a country that is 50x smaller than US  Surely there is no comparison and here everything is on smaller scale. If you compare per acre of land you might get some interesting numbers  

You ask what crops bees pollinate here. See this is where you cannot see the big picture. Bees pollinate not only the crops. Other flowers that bees pollinate are of equal importance for the ecosystem. You think that in all those hives that hobbyists and sideliners keep bees just sit and chill there  And combined volume of hobbyist and sideliners all over the world is far greater than those commercial migratory ones. 
Still, if you want you can sit in a bubble and think how you feed the whole world. 


Steven : no worry, no need to apologize. I blame our government for not doing enough to get Slovenia recognized and not mixed with other countries


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Allen Dick said:


> Gee. It seems really obvious to me, but here we go. I'll try to keep it very simple.
> 
> A beekeeper has hives in an area where they only have one nectar flow or there is a bad drought, so he moves them to where they have something to eat and maybe even thrive.
> 
> ...


Thank you for keeping it simple - I'm sure I would have been struggling if you had used words with more than three syllables.

This is all very poetic, but that is not how most migratory beekeeping happens. It's trucks full of hives being lugged from one monocrop to another, and this is in no way imaginable good for bees.


----------



## kiwiBee (Jul 23, 2009)

I'm certainly not going to get drawn into a debate on who's better than who when it comes to pollination but I have to say that when i read the posts made by hobbyists saying they have just checked their hives and 2 out of 3 have starved and died over winter I wonder why they bothered to keep bees at all.
There's nothing worse than seeing a beehive thats starved and died because there's no excuse for it. 
I wouldn't want to rely on people who keep bees as a hobby to pollinate my orchard just as I wouldn't want my GP to give me a heart transplant.
Cheers
Kiwi


----------



## Allen Martens (Jan 13, 2007)

buckbee said:


> Thank you for keeping it simple - I'm sure I would have been struggling if you had used words with more than three syllables.
> 
> This is all very poetic, but that is not how most migratory beekeeping happens. It's trucks full of hives being lugged from one monocrop to another, and this is in no way imaginable good for bees.


I wasn't going to get drawn into this debate either. The Allen Dick's description describes my area. Except the moving south for winter. Can't do that.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

I don't know any stupid beekeepers. Obviously there are many who are worlds apart in their ideas.This type of discussion always seems kind of amusing to me. It reminds me of a guy who grows 10 tomato plants in his garden trying to tell the farmer who grows 10,000 acres why his methods are all wrong .


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

buckbee said:


> This is all very poetic, but that is not how most migratory beekeeping happens. It's trucks full of hives being lugged from one monocrop to another, and this is in no way imaginable good for bees.


Allen's description _IS_ how it happens.
In our case, and we are not an isolated example by any means, we take our bees to California at the beginning of November, avoiding the extremes of a Wisconsin winter. In late February they pollinate almonds, taking advantage of pollen and nectar flows not otherwise available. They then return for diverse summer forage and honey production in Wisconsin, not moving again until the following fall. 
California almonds cover maybe 500000 acres(?) and could not exist on this scale without migratory beekeeping, hence the hundreds of thousands of colonies heading to California for this duty. Once they are done blooming there is little else for bees on those acres, certainly not at the concentration of bees needed during almond's brief bloom. The same principal applies to many other crops. We are not talking small tracts of subsistence farms repeated again and again,these are huge areas dedicated to one crop, and when a particular bloom is finished the bees need to move to another bloom or be fed.

There is much debate as to whether this agricultural model is sustainable but for the time being this is what we have. The efficiencies of large scale agriculture provides food at a smaller per capital cost to the consumer and it benefits the bees as well. Of course, if bees were only sent from one mono crop to another without consideration of nutritional needs they might suffer the same consequence as any animal with poor diet but that is seldom the case. Keeping bees healthy is the number 1 priority.
Sheri
PS: Some species of bees have strong swarming tendencies, basically picking up and moving to other locations as forage dwindles, even leaving brood behind to do so. Is this behavior in wild bee populations a natural model of "migratory beekeeping".


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> There is much debate as to whether this agricultural model is sustainable but for the time being this is what we have. The efficiencies of large scale agriculture provides food at a smaller per capital cost to the consumer and it benefits the bees as well. Of course, if bees were only sent from one mono crop to another without consideration of nutritional needs they might suffer the same consequence as any animal with poor diet but that is seldom the case. Keeping bees healthy is the number 1 priority.


I'm curious as to how you explain CCD in that case. Or has it not affected you?




> PS: Some species of bees have strong swarming tendencies, basically picking up and moving to other locations as forage dwindles, even leaving brood behind to do so. Is this behavior in wild bee populations a natural model of "migratory beekeeping".


When we see honeybees behaving like that, maybe.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Buckbee- I am reasonable certain that the stress of migratory transportation has very little correlation with CCD. The latest report from May Berrenbaum points to a pathogen as being the culprit. Migratory practices do increase the chances of spreading pathogens, but sedentary practices are vulnerable also. We saw CCD (yes , all the symptoms) in 2006, and our bees do not leave their beeyard(other than to visit flower, duh).

All you "auslanders" should maybe take a trip to the U.S.A., and see how different things are.

Roland


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

buckbee said:


> I'm curious as to how you explain CCD in that case. Or has it not affected you?


No, we have personally seen no symptoms of "CCD" decline. (knock on wood)
And until we know exactly what the cause/causes, preventative/cures are we have good reason to be concerned. The best we can do is take the best care we can of our bees, including moving them to locations they can better prosper in. Migratory beeks balance the pros and cons of _everything _concerning their bees. So, sure, migration is stressful to bees, but not nearly so as starvation. :doh: 

I think CCD is not well understood by many of those throwing the term around, and is used by some as a catch all reason for any colony loss. They can hardly be blamed, as the media focus is on "CCD", the decline of honey bees and the resultant end of the world as we know it. The fact remains that, while we have some very strange unexplained losses, and we are wise to be concerned, _most_ losses are more easily accounted for. The first thing I ask when people come to us for replacement bees claiming CCD losses is "Did they have sufficient food stores going into winter? The next, "What were your mite levels? The next is "What about Nosema?" 
The usual suspects need to be ruled out.
The cases where those issues _are_ ruled out are the troublesome ones.
There is a lot we don't know about CCD. Were the effected colonies exposed to a more virulent virus or deadlier pesticide than others? Or maybe two or more compounds/pathogens that combined to be deadlier than either alone? Are bees only effected when they are stressed by other factors such as poor nutrition or a higher than optimal mite load? The colonies that came out of sunflowers this year seem to be showing an increased incidence of collapse. Is this CCD? If so, how, if at all, are sunflowers a factor? Is it weakness from pesticide exposure? GMO varieties? 
There are so many variables in play here: what is causative, what is symptomatic, what is coincidental? So many of the common practices of beekeeping have been in place for generations, what has suddenly changed?
I feel it is not productive to use "CCD" to focus blame on a favorite whipping boy, whether it is feeding sugar syrup, migratory beekeeping, or cell phone towers. 
Sheri


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Roland said:


> Buckbee- I am reasonable certain that the stress of migratory transportation has very little correlation with CCD. The latest report from May Berrenbaum points to a pathogen as being the culprit. Migratory practices do increase the chances of spreading pathogens, but sedentary practices are vulnerable also. We saw CCD (yes , all the symptoms) in 2006, and our bees do not leave their beeyard(other than to visit flower, duh).


Do you have a link to the relevant May Berrenbaum research? I would like to read more about that.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> There are so many variables in play here: what is causative, what is symptomatic, what is coincidental? So many of the common practices of beekeeping have been in place for generations, what has suddenly changed?
> I feel it is not productive to use "CCD" to focus blame on a favorite whipping boy, whether it is feeding sugar syrup, migratory beekeeping, or cell phone towers.


I agree. I was interested in whether you had seen a correlation between what we have come to see as 'true CCD' and migratory beekeeping, as that seemed to be the message of some of the 'disappearing bees' documentaries we have been seeing over here lately. Bees disappearing from hives in summer is highly unlikely to be down to Nosema, after all, and there didn't seem to be a match for Varroa overload.

I don't want to veer off into speculation about CCD - in fact I wasn't even thinking of migratory beekeeping in the beginning - only the importation of queens from countries with known pathogen/pest issues.

Since you have been good enough to give this thread some serious thought, I would be interested in your take on a variation of the original question: do you consider that locally-adapted bees would seem to be a 'nature-aligned', evolutionary response to fitting bees to their environment? And do you think this is important enough to merit the encouragement of localized queen-rearing/bee breeding?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

buckbee said:


> No. The alternative is to think through the consequences of what you plan to do, in the light of similar situations in other contexts, and then to adjust your actions accordingly.
> 
> It's called 'intelligent behaviour'.


And you don't think that that has been done? Who intelligence are you going to go by?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Peanut Gallery*



buckbee said:


> However, there is plenty of evidence that importing bees has brought trouble in its wake: just take varroa as one example.


Yes, importing bees w/ varroa mites on them was a bad idea. Do you know how it happened? And now that it has happened, what course of action do you think should be followed?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Barry said:


> I apologize. I went back and listened again. You do limit the term to commercial. I still feel that the use of the word comes across as arrogant and divisive.


Maybe it's a coloquial thing. Does the word "stupid" mean something different or carry a different weight in England and Slovenia than it does in the U.S.?


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_See this is where you cannot see the big picture.

And combined volume of hobbyist and sideliners all over the world is far greater than those commercial migratory ones. _

See, this is where you can't see the big picture. Worldwide, less than 5% of beekeepers are commercial beekeepers. Here in the US, less than 1% of beekeepers are commercial, and they have over 80% of the 2.4 million hives.

The <20% of the hives that hobbyists and sideliners have are a drop in the bucket compared to the commercials.

By 2012 nearly 90% of the hives now estimated to exist in the U.S. will be needed to pollinate California's almond groves each spring, according to the Almond Board of California.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/09/03/100202647/index.htm

13% beekeepers or owners of 38% bee colonies in Slovenia transport bees on regularly basis. 7,292 beekeepers keep 164,429 bee-hives.
The average annual crop of honey ranges from 12 to 20 kg per hive. (26-44 pounds - which is VERY poor honey production)
http://web.bf.uni-lj.si/jbozic/congress/engltxt.htm


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> Maybe it's a coloquial thing. Does the word "stupid" mean something different or carry a different weight in England and Slovenia than it does in the U.S.?


Stupid is stupid everywhere. There is no difference in "weight"  
I didn't even comment on the issue of the OP but was replying to JPK on particular pollinaton statement. So why bring Slovenia into this what stupid means ? I was relating antibiotics use with stupidness.

It is my personal opinion and opinion of many competent scientists, veterinarians and health doctors around the world that using antibiotics in beekeeping is simply stupid and harmful. I am proud that we at least got rid of antibiotics in beekeeping in Slovenia years ago. I really can't believe this is still allowed in US while you all whine about chinese honey....
If you think that stupid is strong word maybe I can rephrase it to - not so smart to do or something ?


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> I really can't believe this is still allowed in US while you all whine about chinese honey.... If you think that stupid is strong word maybe I can rephrase it to - not so smart to do or something ? 

Personally I object to your reeated choice of what we over here consider to be abusive language. "Stupid" and "whining" are considered pejoritive words that are quite unspecific and employed to support bankrupt positions when logic and reason can no longer be summoned.

You are discussing some complex topics with intelligent, informed people who are demonstrating considerable restraint and patience with your simplistic and uneducated pronouncements.

It is clear that you have little or no knowledge of the wide spectrum of substances which are labeled 'antibiotics' and the range of effects from mild and innocuous and specific to general, powerful and risky. There is a fairly significant differece between the chemicals observed in Chinese products, including honey, and the antibiotics currently employed in beekeeping. Moreover there is a vast difference in the level of supervision.

This is not to deny that there are concerns about the use of any chemical substance in food production, but to point out that words like 'stupid' are extremely crude and make intelligent discussion impossible.

Unless the tone and level of this thread improves, I doubt I have any further comment.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Countryboy said:


> ...


Do you have any official data how many colonies are kept in US by structure of beekeepers ? 

I said couple of times that all, the commercial beekeepers and hobbyists are important. 

How is 20% a drop in the bucket ? That 20% pollinates everything else while 80% are concentrated on hundreds of acres on almonds and other commercial crops. You underestimate impact bees make on ecosystem. 
If we are talking about direct $$$ in the pocket then you are of course right. 

----

Most beekeepers here transport really small number of hives. The small amount of honey we produce is because most beehives are stationary and we only have one major flow worth extracting which is Black Locust. If you take a look at the numbers you will see that we have a lot of hives per square mile. Where I live there are over 200 stationary colonies in a square mile and in autumn we get another 80 from commercial beekeeper who brings bees home  

We have 21 hives per sq mile while in the US there is not even 1 hive per sq mile. This converts to lower honey production per hive also. 



Allen Dick said:


> ...


I will repeat. If you see stupid as a strong, unappropriate word I rephrase it to "not so smart".


----------



## peacekeeperapiaries (Jun 23, 2009)

Allen Dick said:


> > You are discussing some complex topics with intelligent, informed people who are demonstrating considerable restraint and patience with your simplistic and uneducated pronouncements.


I was going to jump in and comment on this thread however I chose not to comment based on the absurd and inflammatory statements being made. I truly THANK Allen for the above statement, my sentiments exactly, have a nice day.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

peacekeeperapiaries :

Still, with rhetoric mumbo jumbo the problem of antibiotic use doesn't go away....

Nice cheering


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

Slovenia has roughly 5 million acres of land, and 164,000 hives. That is 1 hive per 30 acres, or about 21 hives per square mile, which is a far cry from the hundreds of hives per square mile or two like you earlier claimed.

_How is 20% a drop in the bucket ? That 20% pollinates everything else while 80% are concentrated on hundreds of acres on almonds and other commercial crops. _

We don't eat the everything else. Hobbyist hives pollinate thistles and poison ivy too, but I don't know anyone who eats those. The commercial hives do not stay concentrated on hundreds of acres all year round - they pollinate other things too.

When you have a 4:1 ratio of bees flying around gathering nectar and pollinating (bees don't just pollinate) I fail to understand how that 1 hobbyist hive is more important to pollinating plants than the other 4.

_Do you have any official data how many colonies are kept in US by structure of beekeepers ? _

Google works for you too.

_The small amount of honey we produce is because most beehives are stationary and we only have one major flow worth extracting which is Black Locust. _

Stationary hives here often produce 50-100kg of surplus honey. In Slovenia, you get 12-20 kg.

Just out of curiousity, what antibiotic(s) in beehives are you opposed to beenovice? (Honey and propolis are antibiotics.)


----------



## JohnK and Sheri (Nov 28, 2004)

buckbee said:


> I agree. I was interested in whether you had seen a correlation between what we have come to see as 'true CCD' and migratory beekeeping, as that seemed to be the message of some of the 'disappearing bees' documentaries we have been seeing over here lately.


I think as SMART beekeepers  we need to be careful when quoting a documentary as a credible source. Documentaries sometimes have agendas, not always made clear. I wondered as I watched "The Last Beekeeper" if they had filmed several beekeepers and edited out those without losses. Even if we give the film makers the benefit of all doubt, healthy bees just aren't as dramatic as dying colonies and struggling beekeepers. 

The film makers discussed some general problems of honeybees but made no effort to determine the cause of the particular losses shown, leaving the viewer to assume they were from the issues discussed. 
But is that a safe assumption? The bees taken out of cold storage were DOA in California. When did they die? Did they starve? We are not told. 
The married guy mentioned treating for mites, but successful treating does not automatically follow. What were his mite levels? I am not sure Nosema C was even mentioned, but could easily account for the dwindling shown in this case. I don't remember them saying.
The gentleman from Georgia's bees were fine, he fulfilled his contract and received payment. In the documentary wrap they mentioned his bees had gone backwards. Was it due to almond pollen? Migration? CCD? Neglect? We are left to make our own assumptions. This particular documentary, as entertaining as it was, left us with more questions than answers.


buckbee said:


> Bees disappearing from hives in summer is highly unlikely to be down to Nosema, after all, and there didn't seem to be a match for Varroa overload.


If you are reffering to "The Last Beekeeper" these losses were being reported in January/February, not summer in our part of the world or yours, so the time of year is appropriate for any and all of these other possible causes of loss. They never ruled out varroa, starvation, Nosema.



buckbee said:


> do you consider that locally-adapted bees would seem to be a 'nature-aligned', evolutionary response to fitting bees to their environment? And do you think this is important enough to merit the encouragement of localized queen-rearing/bee breeding?


Forgive me, but I have no idea what you mean by "'nature-aligned' evolutionary response to fitting bees to their environment." I see no problem with selecting from survivor stock in any particular location, if that is what you are meaning, and certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from raising their own queens. I doubt many could match the consistent quality of the pros, but having a more readily available local source of any commodity is not necessarily a bad thing. I see little impact on beekeeping as a whole by doing so, outside of perhaps some small isolated locals. In a practical sense, it is difficult to "evolve" to an environment that is ever changing, be it from harsher, more insidious pesticides, imported parasites or even record extremities of weather. 
Sheri


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Countryboy said:


> ...


Where did I claim hundreds of hives per square mile ? I wrote 21 hives per square mile. Where I live and keep hives there are over 200 hives per square mile. Don't put words into my mouth. 

So you think that only what bees pollinate and gets eaten by humans is important ?

So you don't have any official data ? 

I told you. You have not even 1 hive per square mile and we have 21 hives per square mile. That is one of the reasons why each hive produces less. You can't seem to comprehend that ? Put 2 hives on 2 acres of Phacelia and put 40 hives on 2 acres of Phacelia. You will make your own conclusion about average honey crop....
Don't see where you are going with this mine is bigger than yours   Obviously you are trying to prove some point but I just don't see how honey crop per hive is related. 

There is a reason why antibiotics are banned in most european countries. At the end of the day those only mask foulbrood and are useless and you only have honey contamination which you will agree is harmful for human consumption.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Yes, beenovice, and Slovenia is alot smaller than the U.S.. We have alot of land that wouldn't support a hive. I wonder how many acres we would have if we cut out all of those acres?

Size of a country and it's infrastraucture are two of the problems that one faces when comparing what happens in one country compared to another country. Which no one seems to take into consideration when making comparisons.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JohnK and Sheri said:


> I think as SMART beekeepers  we need to be careful when quoting a documentary as a credible source. Documentaries sometimes have agendas, not always made clear. I wondered as I watched "The Last Beekeeper" if they had filmed several beekeepers and edited out those without losses. Even if we give the film makers the benefit of all doubt, healthy bees just aren't as dramatic as dying colonies and struggling beekeepers.


I take your point about hidden agendas and credibility, but when I see headlines like this:



> T_he reports that I have gotten from beekeepers is that
> about 30% of the healthy colonies that have gone to California -
> for this 2010 almond pollination to fulfill pollination contracts -
> have died in two or three weeks”
> ...


see http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1672&category=Environment

I have to take them seriously. 

And I go on to read:



> Latest CCD Theory: Fewer Pollen Varieties
> 
> WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR THAT SOME STUDIES SUGGEST THAT COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER MIGHT BE TIED SPECIFICALLY TO THE REDUCTION IN BIODIVERSITY OF CROPS AND POLLENS?
> 
> I think that’s one of those givens in commercial agriculture. When you have – in this case – thousands of acres of almonds and nothing else, the bees are able to forage on only one kind of pollen. The pollen is necessary to fertilize almonds and produce an almond seed. The bees eat the surplus pollen and that’s their protein, vitamin, mineral, lipid source. So, when you only have one food/pollen type, this limits their nutrition. Bees are designed to forage on many different kinds of flowers, which produce many different kinds of pollens that have different amino acid along with different vitamins, minerals and lipids. That would be like you just eating white bread. There is some nutrition there, but long-term you are going to get sick.


...which tallies with my belief that bees need variety in both pollen and nectar, and that they cannot get this on monocrops, and that perhaps this has something to do with the disappearances?



> This particular documentary, as entertaining as it was, left us with more questions than answers.


Actually, I think it is quite legitimate sometimes for a documentary to ask questions and not necessarily to spoon-feed us the answers. Getting people to think for themselves and stimulating discussion is a good outcome, too - that is what I try to do in my own way. 



> Forgive me, but I have no idea what you mean by "'nature-aligned' evolutionary response to fitting bees to their environment." I see no problem with selecting from survivor stock in any particular location, if that is what you are meaning, and certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from raising their own queens.


What you suggest is exactly what I have in mind. Bees evolved across a wide range of climates by rapid, local adaptation. Bee that do well in Italy do not necessarily perform in Scotland, yet some beekeepers persistently import them in the vain hope that they will. If beekeepers dropped their nonsensical attitude that queens must be better if it has been raised by large-scale grafting and AI, and just raised their own locally from survivor stock, then localized ecotypes would have a chance to emerge, with - I would suggest - a better chance of survival than those from an entirely different climate and flora.

And I take your point about rapidly-changing local conditions: that is something we need to address via the overall agricultural system.

Thank you for being willing to engage in this subject - I'm glad not everyone here thinks it can be brushed aside by xenophobic name-calling.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Alan Dick and beenovice have some good points. Routine use of antibotics isnt a good thing....either in bees or humans or other species. Treating a case of AFB andnot burning is evenmore stupid...it doesntc cure it just treats the symptoms and it comes back. Kinda like taking medicine to mask your symptoms of a problem(lets say blood pressure) insteadof exercise and diet along with natural cures. Doctors push medicine to treat your disease mnot cure it and treating AFB is no differant. I have a case every two-three years adn it gets the match. I wil then treat the other three on the pallet due to exposure at that time. If THere is just cell or two and a good colony I shakethe bees on the ground and put them on foundation with feed and treat once at that time. Routine use of antibotics in any situation is not good!


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

> Treating a case of AFB andnot burning is evenmore stupid...it doesntc cure it just treats the symptoms and it comes back.

There is that word again. What ever happened to tolerance and understanding, as opposed to generalizing and pronouncing about things far beyond the immediate understanding of the writers and shooting from the hip?

It is sad that people choose to apply abusive language and generalizations to the understandings and practices of others. I really doubt anyone here really knows enough about these matters to be able to justify such categorical and simplistic pronouncements.

Nothing is ever as simple as some would wish. Knowing that we are limited in our understanding and have no idea of the future, the least we can do is be civil.

Barry was right in his instinct about this tread. It began with abusive language and has not strayed too far from that theme.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

This thread irked me a bit from the beginning. "Stupid" in the thread title certainly attracts some attention, but seems a bit over the top to me. Certainly we cause a number of our own problems as beekeepers. And certainly the methods of industrial agriculture (including beekeeping) in this country cause us some grief. And maybe blunt names will make us pay more attention than we have been.

Having said that, I'd be very much more interested in suggestions for remedies than in calling names and making accusations. Industrialized ag is likely here to stay for the time being. Farmers need to make enough money to support their families. Few folks actually farm in this country. Intensive agriculture seems necessary to support the global population of humans. Subsistence farming has some appeal -- for sustainability reasons and romantic notions -- but pales a bit when you consider that you may be one of the humans who starves as a consequence of abruptly eliminating intensive agriculture.

Of course, as has been revealed in this thread, "small farms" collectively may be engaging in just as intensive agriculture as "corporate farms." I can't quite fathom having so many bee hives in an area that production is limited per hive by competition with other hives and leaving those numbers in that area. Obviously, the intensity of the production means less in this argument than the division of agricultural production; that is, what seems to concern folks in this thread more is the number of people engaged in agricultural production, and not the concentration of organisms involved in that production.

Statements were made here, for example, about monocultures of plant crops. What about monocultures of insects? If the concentration of honey bees is so great (because of management by humans) that bees are limited in production by competition among themselves, what impact does that unnatural concentration of one species have on other pollinators, such as other species of bees?

The gist of this thread seems to be about Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). So, what suggestions would you offer for dealing with the problem? I think before offering possible remedies, pinpointing the cause of the problem should be the priority.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Allen Dick said:


> ... .


Don't hang on word itself. See the problem. Word doesn't matter. It is all pretty simple. You should not use antibiotics to "treat" for foulbrood.


----------



## Allen Dick (Jan 10, 2009)

Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk has posted his observations and thoughts on CCD on BEE-L. He is a very thorough and accomplished researcher and has an advanced virus lab at his disposal.

He has reached some interesting conclusions about CCD and I would hesitate to try to sum up his comments here, but anyone can read them at http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L

More info on BEE-L can be found at www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l

Anyone is welcome to read and post to BEE-L, but submissions are moderated for suitability and reliability before publication.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Statements were made here, for example, about monocultures of plant crops. What about monocultures of insects? If the concentration of honey bees is so great (because of management by humans) that bees are limited in production by competition among themselves, what impact does that unnatural concentration of one species have on other pollinators, such as other species of bees?


I'm going to pick this point out because it's an important one and has not been overdone already: I think this should be given consideration for long-term conservation as well as short-term production reasons. If, by keeping too many honeybees in one place, we end up endangering other bee or insect species, we will not be popular in the minds of our descendants. This is why Friends of the Bees advocates consideration of other species when placing hives, and will work with the Bumblebee Conservation Trust and others to research where the balance lies.

This thread was not started to look at CCD at all, but if that's where it is going...


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Buckbee.. the bees died BEFORE the bloom!!!! From what I gather most dead colonies were around sunflowers last summer.....I was told that almost ALL bees that were around sunflowers were dead. I dont know if thats true, but my source is good. I wonder if sunflowers are genetically modified or reated with systemic insecticides....Ill bet they are!
Now about the word stupid...I am not politically correct and call them like I see them and always will! I was not referring to anyone as stipid, but meant it in a general term that you were asking for trouble treating AFB. You get the colony healthy, make a split later and after a few years it is all over your operation. People who do this are either unimformed or not using their common sense. Lets put it this way....If you know what ABF is, how destructive it is or can be and then treat...well I think anyone who does this is stupid.....they are committing beekeeping suicide to their bees. Now if they dont know....well geez I've made so many mistakes INCLUDING when first starting treating AFB like I was told to by my instructor in collage, we all have to learn. Took me 4-5 years to get that mess clean and burning about 10 hives (out of 40).


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I almost forgot, Three years ago I came down with three cases inone beeyard in Fl....caught it quick... and treated whold yard. It just so happened it was new hives inthat yard and there was a beekeeper who moved in eat up with AFB down the road. In this case I treated the whole yard and moved it. Now this is what happens when you treat...IT ALSO CAN AFFECT MANY OTHER BEEKS, which in this case it did. He had it for sometime and just treated....then it over whelmed him...was pissed off to no end when inspector burned his bees.....still wanted to treat and salvage. Now I ask was he smart? I dont want to hurt and make anyone mad, but this kind of management affects or may affect many other beekeepers


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

suttonbeeman : interesting about sunflowers. Around here beekeepers who had bees on sunflowers are also saying those colonies are either dead or very weak.


----------



## Beeslave (Feb 6, 2009)

So now is it the stupid chemical companies, the stupid farmers planting their seeds and using their sprays, or is it still the stupid beekeeper that has no choice that if he has bees they will be using the stupid plants. I'm not saying I am a real smart beekeeper but I have made many stupid decisions based on studies from the so called "Smart" people and forced to use things by the "Smart" goverment(forced to use checkmite before leaving FL because of hive beetles).


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Beeslave said:


> So now is it the stupid chemical companies, the stupid farmers planting their seeds and using their sprays, or is it still the stupid beekeeper that has no choice that if he has bees they will be using the stupid plants.


There is nothing stupid about the agrichem companies: they employ some of the brightest people out of university. Greedy, arrogant, reckless... but not stupid.

Farmers, in my experience, far from being stupid, often have a great deal of wisdom and enquiring minds. They may have been hoodwinked by agrichem salesmen from time to time, but mostly they can tell when someone is pulling the wool over their eyes.

Beekeepers - well, there are beekeepers and beekeepers. There are some who will do almost anything to turn a buck, including taking risks with the health of a whole nation's bees by importing queens from places that are known to have pests and diseases (and these occur in the UK as well as elsewhere), and there are those who put the health of their bees and of their neighbours' bees before any consideration of profit.

Anyone who read my initial posts and listened to my podcasts can have no doubt as to who I was calling stupid.


----------



## Chick (May 21, 2009)

buckbee said:


> I think I failed to make myself clear.
> 
> What I meant was, has the _physical movement_ of bees around the world, i.e. the import and export of bees and queens, been one of the major causes of the problems we see in our hives?


Well, the US banned importation of bees, from other countries in 1922, I think. But our problems came from our neighbors in South America, did not. Then, they imported African bees for studies, which escaped, and have made their way north, and brought with them, all their problems.


----------



## Chick (May 21, 2009)

concrete-bees said:


> not really seeing your point ???? seems off the wall really


Well bees were brought to this country in the 1600's, from Germany, due to there being a need for pollination. These were the black bees we see today, and call them feral bees. This might have been what your great grandfather had.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Chick said:


> Well bees were brought to this country in the 1600's, from Germany, due to there being a need for pollination. These were the black bees we see today, and call them feral bees. This might have been what your great grandfather had.


Well, actually Chick they came from England along w/ all sorts of plants and animals that the Virginia Company Colonists couldn't find growing here. "By this ship and the Discovery we send you conies, mastifs and beehives..." (paraphrased from memory).

I doubt that very many of the feral colonies that one would find to day have much German bee genetics in them at all. Though I could be wrong.

As far as varroa and tracheal are concerned, I believe that they arrived here by other means than AHB. I'm not sure, and I don't think that anyone really knows, but I believe that tracheal mites and varroa mites came into the U.S. w/ smuggled queens.


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Where did I claim hundreds of hives per square mile ? I wrote 21 hives per square mile. Where I live and keep hives there are over 200 hives per square mile. Don't put words into my mouth. _

Right here at post #72. http://www.beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=510864&postcount=72
We do not have any real migratory pollination business as you do overseas and still produce crops, milk. Probably because our country is small *and there are hundreds of hives in each square mile or two *


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Let me explain. Where I live there are 280 hives in one square mile. Hives are mostly placed in rural areas where situation is similar and where milk and crops are produced  
Half of the country is forest. Not much hives there. The areas where hives are placed are packed full. Hundreds per square mile or two like I said. 21 hives per square mile if we calculate the whole area of the country. Obviously no hives in Alps doh.... I am sure you understood. 
Still 21 hives per square mile is not bad huh  Unfortunately like you overseas we are losing colonies because of stupidity.....


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Careful with those accusations about sunflowers now.

Let me point out that the first cry about what became known as CCD was raised by a beekeeper who moved between the northeastern U. S. (few to no sunflowers) and Florida (few to no sunflowers). California isn't a major sunflower-growing state. North Dakota is. Part of South Dakota is. Nebraska, Kansas, major areas in Canada. If the link is as simple (again) as what is proposed here, bees in those areas should be suffering from CCD while others are not.

Oh, and a couple other points here: 1) sunflowers so far are not transgenic (a. k. a. "GM"), and, 2) seed treatments are put on at planting (obviously) as protection against seed predators before germination or as protection against herbivorous insects while the plants are seedlings.

I think the bigger questions about sunflowers and bees might be:

How adequate is sunflower as both a pollen and a nectar source for honey bees?

What other floral sources are available to honey bees when they are placed on sunflowers?

One problem I find in beekeeping today is finding locations with good diversity of nectar and pollen sources. I think too many folks now see flowers as simply a "there" or "not there" resource, rather than looking at the range of floral sources available to bees.

The same lack of diversity in the landscape can explain declines in other pollinators.

Beekeepers may have less influence on some of these factors than we'd like to believe.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Oh, and a couple other points here: 1) sunflowers so far are not transgenic (a. k. a. "GM"), and, 2) seed treatments are put on at planting (obviously) as protection against seed predators before germination or as protection against herbivorous insects while the plants are seedlings.


I think you are underplaying the role of seed dressings here. 

In May 2008 there was a major insecticide poisoning incident in Germany caused by a seed dressing containing Clothianidin, a systemic neonicotinoid. You can read all about it here and here - it led to a temporary ban on all related insecticides. Someone joined up the dots and made it out to be the prime cause of CCD, but probably the picture is more complex than this.

Nevertheless, these compounds are so toxic that even after they have migrated from the seed coating to the pollen on a plant that is 7-8 ft tall, like a sunflower, the pollen grains can still cause acute poisoning in bees.

This video shows how a drop of water from a maize leaf, on a plant that has grown from a neonicotinoid-coated seed, can kill a bee. 

These insecticides are extremely toxic folks - the evidence is out there. They may or may not be the prime cause of CCD, but they sure as heck kill bees.


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

Buckbee, the toxicity of individual chemicals in the neonicotinoid family vary quite a but

Below is a little info on just a few of them.

They break down pretty quickly and are fairly water soluble.

The notion that seed coatings will persist and stay with the plant through maturity and even be persistent in its pollen is a bit far fetched and thus far I've seen no tests/studies to support it.

There are after all a number of different possible applications so it is possible that it could be used more than once (Seed application followed by spraying) in which case I would expect a possibility for it to be on the actual plant.



> http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi117
> General


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Keick
I was only relaying what I am being told by Beeks In CA who have lost or know other beeks who have had massive losses. The most common denominator was the bees were in sunflowersint eh midwest during summer. Is that the cause....I dont know. Thats just the common thing that alot have in common.


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

Good observations there Keick. The more information accurately presented, the better chance we have of narrowing the list of problems we face.

Roland


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JPK said:


> Buckbee, the toxicity of individual chemicals in the neonicotinoid family vary quite a but
> 
> Below is a little info on just a few of them.
> 
> ...


Sorry - simply not true:

In France imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999, after a third of French honeybees died following its widespread use. Five years later it was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment in France. Clothianidin was never approved in France.
In 2003 the Comité Scientifique et Technique, convened by the French government, declared that the treatment of seeds with imidacloprid leads to significant risks for bees. The 108-page report that was made by order of the French agricultural ministry by the universities of Caen and Metz and by the Institut Pasteur states: “The results of the examination on the risks of the seeds-treatment Gaucho (imidacloprid) are alarming. The treatment of seeds by Gaucho is a significant risk to bees in several stages of life. (…) Concerning the treatment of maize-seeds by Gaucho, the results are as alarming as with sunflowers. The consumption of contaminated pollen can lead to an increased mortality of care-taking-bees, which can explain the persisting bee-deaths even after the ban of the treatment on sunflowers”. 
The studies also showed that even very small dosages, few parts per billion, could impair honeybees´ learning performance. Residues of imidacloprid in sunflower nectar and pollen were found at potentially hazardous levels that “can affect honeybees´ learning abilities” and impair their memory. When individual bees were exposed to sublethal doses their foraging activity decreased and they became disorientated, which researchers concluded “can temporarily damage the entire colony”.

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/2821.html

(There are plenty of references I could give, but this one is particularly pertinent.)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I think you are underplaying the role of seed dressings here. -buckbee


I doubt it. I've been involved on research into the efficacy of seed treatments, including all of those mentioned in this thread, against herbivorous insects in sunflowers, soybeans and corn. As one example, those chemicals can be shown to have no effect on aphids on soybeans three weeks after planting. These aphids are feeding directly on the parts of the plants intended to carry the insecticides systemically, and these are very small, very sensitive insects. Those chemicals have no detectible effect on aphids. Yet the reports are that these chemicals somehow reapper and are concentrated weeks later and have significant effects on much larger insects? How would such a thing work?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying it's an impossibility. I'm simply saying that it's unlikely and seems illogical. Making accusations without better evidence is a bit rash, I think.



> Nevertheless, these compounds are so toxic that even after they have migrated from the seed coating to the pollen on a plant that is 7-8 ft tall, like a sunflower, the pollen grains can still cause acute poisoning in bees. -buckbee


How? The plants bloom well beyond the demonstrated half lives of these chemicals. Are the plants actually creating molecules of these insecticides?



> This video shows how a drop of water from a maize leaf, on a plant that has grown from a neonicotinoid-coated seed, can kill a bee. -buckbee


I can take video of dish soap also killing bees. Does that mean that all dish soap should be removed from the market as a lethal chemical?

A very lethal chemical, and one that is in widespread use, is gasoline. Even many of the chemicals produced through combustion of gasoline can be lethal. Should we also outlaw gasoline?



> In France imidacloprid has been banned as a seed dressing for sunflowers since 1999, after a third of French honeybees died following its widespread use. Five years later it was also banned as a sweetcorn treatment in France. Clothianidin was never approved in France. -buckbee


Reports that I've seen suggest that beekeepers in France are still suffering larger than normal losses of bees, many with symptoms like have been reported for CCD here in the U. S. Assuming those reports are true, and combining those reports with the statements here about neonicotinoid seed treatments in crops in France, it seems to me that the continued presence of the problem exonerates the accused in this instance.


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

> The notion that seed coatings will persist and stay with the plant through maturity and even be persistent in its pollen is a bit far fetched and thus far I've seen no tests/studies to support it.





> How? The plants bloom well beyond the demonstrated half lives of these chemicals. Are the plants actually creating molecules of these insecticides?


Have a listen to Eric Mussen. It starts about 31 min into it.

https://breeze.ucdavis.edu/p83111773/


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I highly recommend you read up on the way that seed treatments are applied to seeds, including amounts in terms of number of molecules. Sunflower seeds, soybean seeds, other row crop seeds in particular. Then go back and listen to what Mussen has to say, Delta Bay. He doesn't address the question of the persistence of relatively few molecules applied to the outside of a seed coat and the fate of those few molecules over several weeks. He does deal with drenches of individual plants or trees with far greater quantities of active ingredients.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

In Australia the Neonics are heavily used. But according to Randy Oliver who was at the Wisco meeting this winter, when he toured the country he had a hard time finding anyone who drank the Bayer cool aid. 

But back to the original point of this thread. 

I think bee losses are like politics these days in the media. All hype and a whole lot of misinformation. If you listen to enough of this crap you'd think most bees are dead, missing or soon to be dead and we're all going to end up with rationed health care and our future generations will live in a Blade Runner kind of world because our deficits are going to ruin the country. 

Blah blah blah there's no more of a decline in bees then global warming is coming anytime soon. When I go to state or national bee meetings I find more beekeepers who are having good times then the doom and gloomers who get all of the attention. 

the media never calls looking for any live bees


----------



## honeyshack (Jan 6, 2008)

Bees and sunflowers to day, and bees and sunflowers yester year.

If one was to take a picture of today's fields and a compare it to a picture of yesterday way back there is one big difference.

The lack of weed flowers and natural landscape. Now in order to make farming pay, the farmers are cultivating every corner they have. There is little natural land left.
As well if you look at the actual crops, the rows are much neater. Quite the lack of weed growth competing for nutritents. Now sunflowers are a mono crop for a time.
maybe we as beeks will need to feed pollen when they are one sunflowers to they get the complete pollen complex that a multi crop gives


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

The point is the products are systemic and they can be toxic to bees. Personally I don't have much fate in the safeness of the seeds that have been coated with this stuff but I see you do. You're allowed to have an opinion. 

In 2008 the dressing on corn seed in Western Germany broke lose from the seed and contaminated near by wild flower forage and slaughter every bee in a 200 km swath certainly shows that there can be problems with seed dressings.

I put the link up to add as a point of interest so that all who are following the thread could listen. I'm sure others have and will form their own opinions.


----------



## throrope (Dec 18, 2008)

Guys, I got to page 5 and you convinced me. I am one of the stupid bee keepers of the stupid side of the Atlantic. So, I'm just gonna brace myself for my first loss in six years of stupidity. After all this guidance, I'm resigned to loosing a hive since you confirmed that this happens to stupid beekeepers. I just hope that the other 5 hives don't mourn too much since they are all motley sisters from the same single package.

Since misery loves company, I'd like to hear from other stupid beekeepers on the verge of loosing their first hive, because when it happens, as I'm convinced by y'all, I know I'll be as dead as this stupid keeper's bees from the loneliness.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> The point is the products are systemic and they can be toxic to bees. -Delta Bay


Both true, but not necessarily pertinent. Let me throw a different example at you.

Cotton plants naturally produce gossypol as a defense mechanism against herbivorous insects (just like tobaccos produce nicotine and some plants produce caffeine and many other plants produce many other natural chemicals with insecticidal properties). As a chemical produced by the plant, gossypol is "systemic." It can also be toxic to bees. That does not mean that cotton is the cause of CCD.



> In 2008 the dressing on corn seed in Western Germany broke lose from the seed and contaminated near by wild flower forage and slaughter every bee in a 200 km swath certainly shows that there can be problems with seed dressings. -Delta Bee


Not quite. I believe you're stretching the facts a bit to suit your position. The investigation into this incident revealed that the seed treater incorrectly applied the treatment to the seed, dust abrasion during planting removed the seed treatment and spread it as dust rather than adhered to the seed, and weather conditions favored bees collecting the seed treatment chemical that had been removed from the seeds.

In other words, the bees collected the chemical in this instance like they normally would collect pollen and packed it into their hives.

Of course it was lethal under those conditions! Stands to reason. Guess what? If you dump large quantities of insecticides into hives, the bees in those hives will die. No difference here.

In the official investigations, I found reference to an area of roughly 4,000 hectares, approximately 10,000 acres. That's a far cry from 125-mile swath.



> Personally I don't have much fate in the safeness of the seeds that have been coated with this stuff but I see you do. -Delta Bee


All of my bees remain year round in an area where more 80 percent of the land is planted into row crops where the seeds have been treated with the very chemicals that we're discussing in this thread. I have yet to see any impact on the bees around here that I can attribute to the seed treatments. To other things? Absolutely. But not to seed treatments.

The chemicals that worry me most are the broadleaf herbicides. They get used all over around here to control weeds in lawns and crops fields and rights of way and many other locations. And broadleaf herbicides eliminate the very plants that bees rely on for nectar and pollen.


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

I would have bet everything I own that Bud would have taken up for Bayer...and I would have won! There is alot of evidence that neonictinoids are not good, but heres another question....what effect is the LONG TERM exposure doing to us who eat crops treated with these typr of systemic insecticides?? cant be healthy


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Keep in mind that these chemicals are replacements for older classes of chemicals that have been shown to be much more dangerous.

Would you rather be exposed to methyl parathion or to imidacloprid?

Some of the newer synthetic pyrethroids and neonicotinoids are used heavily by homeowners. Do you feel the same way about them under those circumstances? For example, would you treat your dog with a systemic flea and tick treatment, or a systemic wormer?


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

Kieck said:


> Keep in mind that these chemicals are replacements for older classes of chemicals that have been shown to be much more dangerous.
> 
> Would you rather be exposed to methyl parathion or to imidacloprid?


This is a point I have tried to make over and over. There are many people who fail to acknowledge that modern life requires pesticides (and electricity, and hospitals, and phones, etc.). There is no going back to some sort of golden era where everyone was healthy and happy. 

There is only going forward, trying to improve the quality of life, reduce risk, and make more food, water, and medical care available to more people. Not everything that scientists produce is good, and not everything that's new is good, but the myth of the golden past is a fool's dream. 

An informed public is the only defense against domination, whether the power plays of politics or the tyranny of technology. Simply refusing to learn and try to understand, and to cling to nostalgia for a non-existent past is more toxic and harmful than any new techo-fix.

MHO


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Would you rather be exposed to methyl parathion or to imidacloprid?


That is a specious argument. It's like saying - Do you want to be shot or hanged?

No - I want to live a healthy life, thank you very much, and I don't need insecticides or herbicides in my food, or in the food of my bees.



> Some of the newer synthetic pyrethroids and neonicotinoids are used heavily by homeowners. Do you feel the same way about them under those circumstances? For example, would you treat your dog with a systemic flea and tick treatment, or a systemic wormer?


That is irrelevant. Neither I nor my bees eat dogs. But since you ask, you might like to explain the huge increase in cancers in both dogs and cats over the last 20 years or so.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

peterloringborst said:


> This is a point I have tried to make over and over. There are many people who fail to acknowledge that modern life requires pesticides (and electricity, and hospitals, and phones, etc.). There is no going back to some sort of golden era where everyone was healthy and happy.
> 
> There is only going forward, trying to improve the quality of life, reduce risk, and make more food, water, and medical care available to more people. Not everything that scientists produce is good, and not everything that's new is good, but the myth of the golden past is a fool's dream.
> 
> ...


<yawn> Typical response of the pro-chemical lobby. The bit you fail to acknowledge is that, before '-icides' were in widespread use (after WWI, when Bayer and others found a lot of nerve agents on their hands and no war-mongers to sell them to) we were losing about 25% of our farm crops to pests and diseases. After nearly a century, we are still losing about the same percentage to pests and diseases - and now we are getting poisoned as well.

It is a typical tactic of the agri-chem lobby to conflate 'pesticides' with 'progress' - sorry, only the gullible swallow that old saw.




> An informed public is the only defense against domination, whether the power plays of politics or the tyranny of technology.


Absolutely. And especially the tyrrany of Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta, who expect us to swallow their GM food and believe every PR yarn they spin us.

And, by the way:

*Imidacloprid is highly toxic to honeybees (Apis mellifera), with a reported LD50 of 8 ng/bee. *

Actual toxicity varies widely depending on honeybee subspecies and type of exposure. *Acute oral toxicity LD50 values for both Apis mellifera mellifera and Apis mellifera caucasica are approximately 5 ng/bee*, while contact LD 50 values are 14 ng/bee for A. m. caucasica and 24 ng/bee for A. m. mellifera . Imidacloprid is toxic in smaller doses when ingested over an extended period: *chronic LD 50 values range from 0.01–1.0 ng/bee*. *Low doses of imidacloprid and imidacloprid metabolites have been found to negatively affect honeybee foraging and learning behavior. *
*
Significant adverse effects of imidacloprid have been reported on non-target beneficial invertebrates.* Kunkel et al. (2001) found that the carabid beetle Harpalus pennsylvanicus exhibited sublethal intoxication when exposed to imidacloprid-treated turfgrass, resulting in increased mortality due to ant predation. These effects were lessened by post-treatment irrigation. Carabid beetles feeding on corn seedlings that were seed-treated with imidacloprid at a rate of 0.16 mg/seed suffered nearly 100 percent mortality (Mullin et al., 2005). Predatory minute pirate bug (Orius spp.) populations were significantly reduced in field sown with corn that was seed-treated with imidacloprid at a rate of 4.9 g/kg seed (Albajes et al., 2003).

Imidacloprid is highly toxic to the convergent lady beetle, Hippodamia convergens... 

... *two imidacloprid derivatives (olefin and nitrosimine) occur as metabolites in treated plants and have greater insecticidal activity than the parent compound* (Nauen et al., 1998). The guanidine metabolite of imidacloprid does not possess insecticidal properties, but has a higher mammalian toxicity than the parent compound (Tomizawa and Casida, 1999).


----------



## JPK (May 24, 2008)

buckbee said:


> we were losing about 25% of our farm crops to pests and diseases. After nearly a century, we are still losing about the same percentage to pests and diseases - and now we are getting poisoned as well.


The first portion of your statement is certainly false and there is a wealth of documentation out there to prove that farm crops are MUCH more productive than they were a century ago and that we lose less to incidental problems like pests than we did previously.

http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/100/Supplement_3/S-79.pdf

As to the rest of it, I'm personally not looking to ingest any more chemicals than necessary but what I've seen about this class of pesticides clearly indicate that they are much much safer for humans than the ones they replace.

The fact of the matter is that Peter is correct, there's a myth than the Green movement seems to push that there is this romantic past, the good old days that just never existed.

I don't consider the Good Old Days to be a time when folks dies of simple diseases and conditions that are quickly remedied today, or an environment where all of the streets are covered in horse poop because that was the "engine" of the day or one where human waste was pumped directly into rivers and streams or where there was no good means of keeping food fresh.

We live a better quality of life today than any prior generation.....maybe not in the UK but certainly here in the US


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

JPK said:


> As to the rest of it, I'm personally not looking to ingest any more chemicals than necessary but what I've seen about this class of pesticides clearly indicate that they are much much safer for humans than the ones they replace.


And for bees? Is that not the subject of this thread?



> The fact of the matter is that Peter is correct, there's a myth than the Green movement seems to push that there is this romantic past, the good old days that just never existed.


Nobody I know is pushing for any such thing - that's another myth manufactured by the chem lobby to muddy the waters. 

And BTW by far the biggest improvement in human health over the last 200 years has come about not by medical advances or pesticides but through the understanding and installation of nutrition and through better hygeine - especially efficient sewage disposal.

Mixed, organic agriculture is by no means 'stepping into the past' or any other convenient cliché - it is the only way we will be able to feed ourselves without poisoning ourselves and many other species.

If ****roaches had sufficient intelligence - and I suspect they are already ahead of some people - they would be rubbing their feet with glee at the imminent prospect of inheriting what's left of the planet from this race of destructive, self-seeking, short-sighted _**** sapiens_.


----------



## Dieseltrac (Oct 14, 2009)

To use or not to use chems? If you use chems you take a chance of building a resistance to the chems or killing your patient in the process. The treatment of a disease is not a cure but a treatment. Creatures have to either evolve or parish it’s natures funny little way of sorting things out. The strong survive and the rest is history.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> <yawn> Typical response of the pro-chemical lobby. The bit you fail to acknowledge is that, before '-icides' were in widespread use (after WWI, when Bayer and others found a lot of nerve agents on their hands and no war-mongers to sell them to) we were losing about 25% of our farm crops to pests and diseases. After nearly a century, we are still losing about the same percentage to pests and diseases - and now we are getting poisoned as well.
> 
> It is a typical tactic of the agri-chem lobby to conflate 'pesticides' with 'progress' - sorry, only the gullible swallow that old saw.


This sort of response is the reason why many people avoid BeeSource. Do you honestly suppose that I am part of the "pro-chemical lobby"? 

Many folks suggest that we need neither pesticides nor vaccines, for example. There is a small percentage of people who farm without pesticides and don't get vaccinations. I submit their success is due to the fact that pests and diseases are controlled by the rest of us, who use these tools as needed. 

One has only to go to a country where such luxuries as pest and disease controls are not available to see the famine, sickness and suffering. But I suppose that WE can simply walk into a golden future where pests and diseases simply avoid us because we are holy.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

peterloringborst said:


> This sort of response is the reason why many people avoid BeeSource. Do you honestly suppose that I am part of the "pro-chemical lobby"?


You are certainly singing from their hymn sheet.



> Many folks suggest that we need neither pesticides nor vaccines, for example. There is a small percentage of people who farm without pesticides and don't get vaccinations. I submit their success is due to the fact that pests and diseases are controlled by the rest of us, who use these tools as needed.


And I suggest that their success is more likely due to healthy immune systems, not compromised by invasive and largely unnecessary medications.

Not that vaccinations and pesticides should even be considered in the same argument.



> One has only to go to a country where such luxuries as pest and disease controls are not available to see the famine, sickness and suffering.


Most famine and sickness in such places is caused by politics, not lack of pesticides. They starve, while obesity is the biggest health problem in the USA, and heading that way in Britain. 

That is obscene, and no amount of GM or pesticides will fix it.


----------



## honeyman46408 (Feb 14, 2003)

t:*Take a deep breath boyzs t:*


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

There seems to be more "you" in this thread than is required to discuss the issue. Can we be less personal and more topical?


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> That is a specious argument. It's like saying - Do you want to be shot or hanged? -buckbee


I don't think it's all that specious. Organophosphates were in widespread use thirty, forty, even fifty years ago. The dangers of organophosphates have been recognized. They persist, they are toxic to a broad range of organisms, they break down into toxic decay chemicals. And pests were and are showing signs of building resistance to those chemicals. So, classes of insecticides switch. Not necessarily because producers demanded new products, and certainly not because consumers demanded new and safer products, but because scientists and regulators recognized the problems and drove the changes.

Will producers cease using pesticides simply because the chemicals carry some risks with them? If pesticides are banned in agricultural production, agriculture would change drastically. Maybe for the better, maybe not. Certainly in a way that would alter most Americans' lifestyles. But that's getting way off topic.

The point is that, as beekeepers, we don't have the power or ability (even if we wanted to) to tell all other agricultural producers that they can no longer use pesticides. Better to see some pesticides that seem safer being used than to see the pesticides that are known to be more problematic being used.



> That is irrelevant. Neither I nor my bees eat dogs. -buckbee


Hardly irrelevant. Ag applicators are required to be licensed and certified to make chemical applications. Homeowners are not, for applications of the very same active ingredients. Many of the point-source contaminations of these active ingredients come from homeowners and casual users of pesticides.

But to point out where we might head with this same line of reasoning, using the same thoughts as are used for the seed treatment arguments:

A neonicotinoid systemic insecticide is applied to a dog. The application amount (quantity) is far greater than the amount used to treat a seed. That chemical typically remains effective in the body of that dog for one month. During that time, the dog is certainly urinating and defecating. And that systemic chemical is now being excreted. I'll confess that I have no idea what the concentrations of chemical in that excrement might be, or how long it might persist in the environment after being excreted, but if the tiny quantities used per seed in seed treatments have the claimed toxicity to bees even months after application, why wouldn't those trace amounts that are excreted by pets and taken up by plants have that same potential?

And what happens to all those applicator vials of the stuff after they've been mostly used up (is all of the product ever really dispensed from those applicators)? Are they recycled in pesticide collection locations? Or are they dumped into common trash, where run-off from those containers can be spread through various means?



> But since you ask, you might like to explain the huge increase in cancers in both dogs and cats over the last 20 years or so. -buckbee


Can't. I simply can't. I would like to point out that -- at least in this part of the world -- we have contamination from any number of pesticides (not just neonicotinoids), but that contamination is dwarfed by pollution from combustion products of fossil fuels, chemical waste products from manufacturing processes, chemical pollution from daily living, traces of pharmaceuticals in water sources, light pollution and noise pollution and all sorts of other alterations to the environment. Trying to single out a single factor or two to pin all the blame for an increase in the incidence of a disease (which may also be affected by the rates of detection as veterinary diagnostic care has increased over the last 20 years) is beyond me.

Same goes for bees. They work in a complex environment over a broad area, coming into contact with things that we as beekeepers likely never imagine. Singling out a single factor as causing a "general health decline" of bees I think is beyond our abilities at this point.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> So, classes of insecticides switch. Not necessarily because producers demanded new products, and certainly not because consumers demanded new and safer products, but because scientists and regulators recognized the problems and drove the changes.


I don't know about your patch, but in the UK this was not the case. Many farmers were made ill by organophosphate sheep dips, and there was massive pressure for change that met stubborn resistance from both government and the pesticide industry, both of which pretended for years that there was not a problem. Scientists these days are mostly in the pay of the corporates, and they know beter than to bite the hand that feeds them.



> If pesticides are banned in agricultural production, agriculture would change drastically. Maybe for the better, maybe not. Certainly in a way that would alter most Americans' lifestyles.


Let's be honest here: most Americans could do with a change of lifestyle - especially diet! 



> Better to see some pesticides that seem safer being used than to see the pesticides that are known to be more problematic being used.


One of the oldest tricks of the advertising industry is to create a false choice between two alternatives, completely ignoring (and therefore causing their audience to ignore) other possibilities. In Europe, we have this thing called 'organic agriculture', and it really works - without pesticides.



> Homeowners are not, for applications of the very same active ingredients. Many of the point-source contaminations of these active ingredients come from homeowners and casual users of pesticides.


Yes, we have to convince gardeners to stop spraying poisins too. But I suspect their use of them pales into insignificance compared to the millions of tons that are routinely spread around farmland. 



> A neonicotinoid systemic insecticide is applied to a dog......why wouldn't those trace amounts that are excreted by pets and taken up by plants have that same potential?


They may have. Anyone done the research?



> Singling out a single factor as causing a "general health decline" of bees I think is beyond our abilities at this point.


Of course. Which is why I didn't suggest that the importation of queens was the ONLY means by which bees were under attack. But I still think it is an extremely important issue in the UK, and I wanted to know if people thought it was important in the USA and other places too, and if we could stick to that line of enquiry, who knows - we may get somewhere!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> I don't know about your patch, but in the UK this was not the case. -buckbee


Sounds to be quite a bit different. DDT was not removed from use because it made people sick. We still have a number of ag producers who would like to return to using it. Same with a number of other chemicals.

Right now, some herbicides are under label review. Not because they don't work (they do work), not because anyone has gotten sick off them yet (no real evidence of it yet), and not because the farmers want them off the market (the farmers want to continue using them). The chemicals are under review because researchers have raised concerns and the regulatory agencies (government run) want to confirm the safety of continued use before relabeling them.



> Let's be honest here: most Americans could do with a change of lifestyle - especially diet! -buckbee


True, but I was thinking more in terms of massive land grabs, skyrocketing land values, food shortages, starvation, changes along those lines. These might be political and distribution issues relating to food production, but they will become all too real as problems with such a drastic change.

Along with such production changes, we (all of humanity) would face a return to greater subsistence agriculture and the inherent slowing of technological developments that would occur through such a reversion, I think.

Whether such changes benefit the species, the environment, or individual humans becomes a very personal set of beliefs and opinions. Such things might be good as a whole, but if you (not you personally, but anyone reading this) become one of the people eliminated by such a drastic change in the socioeconomic system, would you be prepared to die for your beliefs? That's what may result.

Getting way off topic with that.



> Yes, we have to convince gardeners to stop spraying poisins too. But I suspect their use of them pales into insignificance compared to the millions of tons that are routinely spread around farmland. -buckbee


The most heavily sprayed areas in this country are places like golf courses. Hardly a form of production agriculture, but still contaminated. I worry less about a given volume of pesticide applied according to the label (and the labels are written to protect the environment as much as possible while still allowing for the use of the chemical) than about a lesser volume applied at rates far exceeding the labeled concentration.

One of the common synthetic pyrethroids here has raised some real concerns, and not because of its use in agricultural settings. The abuse is very clearly in homes and lawns and other non-agricultural uses. Those "homeowner uses" of the active ingredient have caused in to appear in water sources far before it was expected to show up.



> But I still think it is an extremely important issue in the UK, and I wanted to know if people thought it was important in the USA and other places too, . . . . -buckbee


I am not in favor of willy-nilly importation of bees or other commodities, but let's be honest about it in this country: very, very few of the shipping containers are ever inspected thoroughly. Even those that are inspected may not be inspected for stowaways. We've seen several species of beetles accidentally imported to this continent through global trade. I agree, put some safeguards in place, but bear in mind that all of our best efforts may go for naught just because the systems we use may not prevent unforeseen and unintented circumvention of those very safeguards.


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/organic-farming/true-false_en

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html


----------



## Countryboy (Feb 15, 2009)

_Ag applicators are required to be licensed and certified to make chemical applications. _

Only for restricted use pesticides. Joe Schmoe can walk into TSC and buy Roundup.

_And what happens to all those applicator vials of the stuff after they've been mostly used up (is all of the product ever really dispensed from those applicators)?_

Triple rinsed and then burned. You rinse the jug as you are adding water to fill the sprayer. The rinse water is added to the sprayer tank.

_Let's be honest here: most Americans could do with a change of lifestyle - especially diet! _

I disagree. Diet has little to do with obesity. MRE's are about 5000 calories each, and soldiers eat 2-3 of these a day, and they don't get obese. The problem is that many people are sedentary and get very little exercise.

_In Europe, we have this thing called 'organic agriculture', and it really works - without pesticides._

My cousin farms several hundred acres of certified organic crops. His yields suck compared to the neighbor down the road who sprays his crops with a chemical package. If Stewart didn't get a premium price for his certified organic crops, he couldn't compete with the farmer who uses a chemical package.

_Yes, we have to convince gardeners to stop spraying poisins too. But I suspect their use of them pales into insignificance compared to the millions of tons that are routinely spread around farmland. _

The gallons used are not significant. What is significant is the concentration of these chemicals. Most farmers know the correct application rate. (and they don't overapply, because that just costs them more money.) Many gardeners overapply pesticides and use dangerous concentrations. (Which is why they won't let gardeners use many of the chemicals which are more dangerous in higher concentrations.)


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Only for restricted use pesticides. Joe Schmoe can walk into TSC and buy Roundup. -Countryboy


Not in this state. Ag applicators (and please note the "ag") are required to be certified and licensed to make applications of _all_ chemicals. An ag applicator is defined here as anyone who has the potential to gross $1000 or more in a year from an agricultural commodity.

For beekeepers, the potential to gross $1000 in a year in honey doesn't take very many hives.

But your point is dead on -- any homeowner can walk into a store and buy pesticides. Maybe not all, but certainly some pretty potent stuff.



> Triple rinsed and then burned. -Countryboy


Nope. I wasn't talking about shuttles for ag chemicals or jugs of pesticides here. I was talking about those little squeeze tubes of systemic insecticides you can buy to control fleas and ticks on dogs (and cats, but mostly dogs). Ever put fipronil or imidacloprid or amitraz or ivermectin on a dog? Do you really know anyone who triple rinses and disperses the residue from those little applicator tubes? Not likely. I'd stake money on 99 percent of them simply getting thrown in the trash.

Seems insignificant, until you consider the millions of dogs in this country that receive monthly treatments like this. Suddenly that residue isn't so insignificant.

Bringing it all back to bees, how many treatments for mites follow the label? How many beekeepers leave strips in the hives too long or not long enough? How many use chemicals that are not even legally labeled for use in hives, including any number of "natural" and "organic" treatments? Maybe we really do need to look in the mirror to see the roots of many of our beekeeping problems.


----------



## imcurtis (Feb 21, 2010)

buckbee said:


> It's like saying - Do you want to be shot or hanged?.


After reading this thread I don't care. Either would do.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> Along with such production changes, we (all of humanity) would face a return to greater subsistence agriculture and the inherent slowing of technological developments that would occur through such a reversion, I think.


A huge part of the human race already lives like that. And a gentle foot on the brake of technology would be welcomed by many people.



> Whether such changes benefit the species, the environment, or individual humans becomes a very personal set of beliefs and opinions. Such things might be good as a whole, but if you (not you personally, but anyone reading this) become one of the people eliminated by such a drastic change in the socioeconomic system, would you be prepared to die for your beliefs? That's what may result.


I doubt we will have much choice. There are indications that unless we change our ways, we are pretty much on the extinction list already.



> The abuse is very clearly in homes and lawns and other non-agricultural uses. Those "homeowner uses" of the active ingredient have caused in to appear in water sources far before it was expected to show up.


Isn't it interesting how stuff in the real world seems often not to conform to scientists' predictions? Almost as though they often don't know diddly about the very things they claim to know lots about? And we still believe them when they tell us that "this new stuff is harmless".



> ...in this country: very, very few of the shipping containers are ever inspected thoroughly. Even those that are inspected may not be inspected for stowaways. We've seen several species of beetles accidentally imported to this continent through global trade. I agree, put some safeguards in place, but bear in mind that all of our best efforts may go for naught just because the systems we use may not prevent unforeseen and unintented circumvention of those very safeguards.


I fear you are right on the button there.

And I still think we should ban all imports of queens to reduce that risk to a minimum.

The UK bee inspectors know that it is only a matter of time before we get SHB and AHB if things go on the way they are now.


----------



## toad (Jun 18, 2009)

allen martens
If people didn't import bees to America we wouldn't have a problem you say?? Your 100% right, cuz we would not have a honey bee here! Honey bees are not native to America. So


----------

