# Neonic facts



## oldforte

Until actual FACTS are presented that neonics were found IN THE DEAD BEES of deadouts by scientific methods please do not continue to present the conjecture that the bees existance is coming to an end because of it. Opinion is one thing....having proof is entirely different...and so far no proof has been presented. Until that time start your dribble by "in my opinion".


----------



## JRG13

It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.


----------



## jim lyon

JRG13 said:


> It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.


Both? Seems more like a dozen to me. I gave up trying to keep track of them all. Too many winter storms, too many beekeepers with too much time on their hands. I plead guilty and throw myself at the mercy of the board for my part in it. Somebody gave the pig wrestling analogy.....that was good.


----------



## cerezha

JRG13 said:


> It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.


 Do you feel better if you shut up different opinion(s)? You are very naive if think that you are in power to change somebody. People just drift away from this source. As a result, you guys could enjoy yourself... references to the absence of the "facts" is just pathetic and sad. If somebody is not capable to learn something new outside of the box, than, yes, for this blind mind - there are no "facts"! Why, because, facts are outside of the box. My apology, nothing personal.


----------



## bobbarker

The problem is that there are a lot of new beeks that are looking for help and answers when something is going wrong, or has gone wrong, and people swearing up and down that it's all because of neonics aren't doing them any favors. When you tell a new beek that their hives died this winter because of neonics, it tells them 1) They shouldn't keep bees anymore, because there's nothing they can do to stop their bees from being exposed, and all of their hives will die anyways, and/or 2) They stop trying to find out what actually caused the problem. Yes, it _could_ have been from neonics, but not necessarily. It could have been something that actually is preventable, but they don't know that.

I agree with you Oldforte, people need to stop presenting conjecture as fact and wait for the evidence to roll in.


----------



## Gord

The purpose of this forum is (as far as I know) to promote the *free* exchange of ideas and information.
That's not happening a lot nowadays.
I've seen a lot of posts that are simply slanderous garbage, posted by a lot of people who are hiding behind a keyboard.
And it's not any particular group, but it is widespread.
People demanding proof of an idea, far beyond what they could possibly provide to support their own position.
If you don't agree with a post, why not say yes, no, or maybe so?
Better yet, why not say nothing, unless you have value to add?

Don't hit send; ask yourself "What good is this going to do?"
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
I gotta say, a lot of doubt has been removed lately...


----------



## JRG13

You're right Jim, I should tally them up, it's hardwork, but somebody has to do be the kaboose.


----------



## cerezha

JRG13 said:


> You're right Jim, I should tally them up, it's hardwork, but somebody has to do be the kaboose.


 It looks like you miss the station... are you trying to reverse train's direction? You have emotions but no facts. You probably need to know that in any civilized country any chemical substance, which is used on food needs to be proven harmless to people, domestic stock, environment etc. What *you* want is to prove that substance is harmful ("fact"). You pushing the train in opposite direction. There is no need to prove that substance is harmful, because by definition, the substance is assumed to be harmful if not proven opposite. Please, do not ask for "facts" - Wikipedia is a good starting point. Many people on this source, who is silenced, will be happy to help if you express the desire to understand, not issue stupid statements. My apology, nothing personal.


----------



## Ian

Soooo, . . . we ignore the facts, . ?

Jim, where is that pig !


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> Soooo, . . . we ignore the facts, . ?
> 
> Jim, where is that pig !


 I think, ignorance is the fact... I have no idea who is "we"? people, who support Bayer&Ko? Believe me, they do not need your support - they have army of lawyers to prove that their chemicals are "harmless". Note: the lawyers, not scientist will decide... It is so weird that many of "you" keep the side of the "big evils"... I would imagine that beekeepers should be protective of their investments... and _bee _.... well... closer to nature... I think, I misunderstood the entire field...


----------



## Barry

cerezha said:


> It is so weird that many of "you" keep the side of the "big evils"...


I see them keeping the side of reality, and when in doubt, take a wait and see attitude.


----------



## cerezha

Barry said:


> I see them keeping the side of reality, and when in doubt, take a wait and see attitude.


I think, the reality is different to different "we"... to me, the reality is that CCD is happened and so far there is no good explanation what caused it. Neurotoxins obviously (to me) may cause all kind of problems including "suicidal" behavior, dementia etc. Now, imagine the suicidal bee with dementia. Imagine many such bees. Do * you* want such "crazy" bees in your beehive? OK, neonics * are * neurotoxins to insects (and human, depends from dose) including bees. They do not kill bees (depends from dose) - they made them "crazy". Understood? "Crazy" bees one day will decide to go out, together and forever ... Does not look like CCD? Now, "crazy" *we* will ask for the "facts"... 

Another "we" probably see this differently - it seems to me, they afraid to face the reality (it is ugly) and just wanted to have peaceful life as it was 40 years ago without varroa and strange words like "neonics", CCD ... I have deep respect to these "we" as long as they do not speak for other "we-s".


----------



## jim lyon

Ian said:


> Jim, where is that pig !


Just beam me up before the wrestling match begins. :w


----------



## JRG13

Cerezha,

We're just having some fun at our own expense and people posting with a clear agenda based on a lot of speculation and not based on a lot of facts. We're not saying neonics aren't bad for bees but to recklessly proclaim they're at the key factor in CCD is plain ridiculous and takes away from the other factors that may contribute.


----------



## cerezha

oldforte said:


> Until actual FACTS are presented that neonics were found IN THE DEAD BEES...


 Non-sense because it is shown that neonics have effect on bees at *sub-lethal* dose. Do you know what "sub-lethal" means? It means that bees do not die in the hive - they ...CCD. Now, are you familiar with definition of CCD? Check Wikipedia at least. Absence of the large quantities of the dead bees in the beehive is one of the CCD indicators. Thus, your statement is inaccurate. Also, it looks like, you are not a beekeeper (sorry, nothing personal) because, even myself with very limited bee-experience know that sick bees normally leave the beehive to die away from the hive. This is protection from spreading the "source of death" (may be a chemical or pathogen). Thus, in most cases, there are no dead bees. Now, how you want to find any evidence if technically, there are no substantial amount of dead bees? Where the pig?


----------



## cerezha

JRG13 said:


> ...We're just having some fun at our own expense ...


Me - too! I am having fun at your expenses... I think, that we all should have the same agenda - for our bees to be healthy and productive. In order to see if neonics involved in CCD, it must be temporary banned - if CCD persists, than it means that neonics do not cause the CCD and ban may be lifted. Very simple. And we all should be concerned if any substance potentially could be dangerous to our bees. Statements like the beginner of this thread are misleading and provocative... they DO NOT help our bees! I strongly believe that information and knowledge could help. Ignorance - never.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> ...
> Neurotoxins obviously (to me) may cause all kind of problems including "suicidal" behavior, dementia etc. Now, imagine the suicidal bee with dementia. Imagine many such bees. Do * you* want such "crazy" bees in your beehive? OK, neonics * are * neurotoxins to insects (and human, depends from dose) including bees. They do not kill bees (depends from dose) - they made them "crazy". Understood? "Crazy" bees one day will decide to go out, together and forever ... Does not look like CCD? Now, "crazy" *we* will ask for the "facts"...


Hi Cerezha!

I can see that you have been wondering about the curious case of CCD as well.

I have followed the reports about CCD closely and read the up to date scientific literature, and I have seen CCD repeatedly myself, luckily not in my own hives. 

To me there is no doubt that it is caused by neonicotinoids, and I have tried to find an explanation for the delayed disappearance of the bees. 
Please check out this thread where I explain my theory:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?278286-A-possible-explanation-for-CCD


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Hi Stromnessbees
I have read your thread. Since, neonics affected neuron's connections, irreversibly, there are bunch of different things may happen in bees. I personally, do not feel, I am expert in this. My approach is that if there is ANY evidence that chemical is harmful (to anything!). That chemical needs to be removed from use for clarification. Once proven to be harmless, it may be returned in the business. 
From another hand, as another "we" stated correctly, other factors may also contribute to CCD. It is unwise to blame only on neonics - complex approach is necessary.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> My approach is that if there is ANY evidence that chemical is harmful (to anything!). That chemical needs to be removed from use for clarification.


Don't take any aspirin or prescription drugs!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> Don't take any aspirin or prescription drugs!


 Absolutely! In fact, I do not consume aspirin and I do not need prescription drugs (so far). Your sarcasm is pointless, because even in corrupted system, FDA regularly banned harmful drugs. Usually, it is happening when people died or disabled from the drug. Unfortunately, many drugs/chemicals are harmful and still on the market. The system, when private company invented the chemical AND prove that it is not harmful is direct way to disaster - of coarse, somehow magically chemical is harmless until ... a few people died or disabled ... from officially harmless chemical. Same with neonics - they are by nature may not be harmless because reacts irreversibly with nAChRs in mammals. There is summary on recent scientific publications regarding neonics in mammals if anybody interested:


----------



## Oldtimer

cerezha said:


> You have emotions but no facts.


There is a recent thread started by somebody asking why his hive died. Almost no information was given other than that his bees were dead.

On this basis, the FACTS, as given in one of the following posts, were that his bees had been killed by neonics. And as they had been killed by neonics, there was no point having bees there again.

It occured to me that if everybody who had a deadout as described, took this advise, there would be very few bees in America.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> My approach is that if there is ANY evidence that chemical is harmful (to anything!). That chemical needs to be removed from use for clarification. Once proven to be harmless, it may be returned in the business.


Many municipal water systems use _chlorine _to kill live organisms in the water that is distributed to homes and businesses. *Chlorine is a deadly chemical*. So, under your proposal, chlorine should not be allowed in water treatment plants. Of course, the reality is that without chlorine, or some other potential harmful equivalent, many people would get sick and may die from tainted water.

Even plain old table salt is a "chemical is harmful (to anything!)". If you eat a cup of salt a day, or drink ocean water exclusively, you will soon die! Are you going to ban *salt*?


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

You know who has helped me understand the neonic issue? Randy Oliver. He actually goes through all these studdies and red flags the agenda pushers. He knows the process, he understands a properly prepared study on a subject. He will go through a study related to honeybee health and bring it to a level beekeepers like me can understand. 

I think he is the reason why beekeepers on this forum push back at agenda pushers now


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Here is his website, if anyone is interested

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

cerezha, you should read some of what he is saying. Dont take this invite to his page as an attack on your philosophy, your entitled to your opinion 
just read a bit about what Randy has to say


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Hey Barry,

Why don't you create a forum dedicated to pesticide/CCD for these discussions. Perhaps you could use the Diseases and Pests if you'd rather not start a new one. When posts appear in the main forums (Bee Forum or 101) they can be moved to the appropriate place. I think it would be very beneficial to move this out of the main posting areas. There's very little new information coming in and the rehash with subsequent fighting is really distracting to the mission.


----------



## Acebird

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Many municipal water systems use _chlorine _to kill live organisms in the water that is distributed to homes and businesses. *Chlorine is a deadly chemical*. So, under your proposal, chlorine should not be allowed in water treatment plants. Of course, the reality is that without chlorine, or some other potential harmful equivalent, many people would get sick and may die from tainted water.


Chlorine is a deadly chemical. Fluoride is another deadly chemical. Chlorine is used because of a maze of pipes traveling underground along a city with another maze of pipes carrying poop. Many people have wells that are not chlorinated and these people are probably more healthy than those drinking chlorinated water. Wiled animals don't drink chlorinated water for the most part so the bottom line is chlorine is a necessary evil but a evil non the less. A certain percentage of people are getting sick from chlorinated water but it is a small percentage and we can always treat them with more deadly chemicals to save a few of them. Tough luck for the rest. That is pretty much the attitude right now with neonic's.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> You know who has helped me understand the neonic issue? Randy Oliver. He actually goes through all these studdies and red flags the agenda pushers. He knows the process, he understands a properly prepared study on a subject. He will go through a study related to honeybee health and bring it to a level beekeepers like me can understand.
> 
> I think he is the reason why beekeepers on this forum push back at agenda pushers now


That's sure a factor Ian I "devour" everything Randy writes, but my opinion on this issue is what I see and what I experience in my beekeeping operation. The area we run bees in has been overrun with neonic treated row crops in recent years like most everywhere else. CCD? I've never seen it so I guess I really don't know what it is. My experience is much like Mike Palmer describes, I just don't see a problem. Overall our bees are better than they were 10 years ago and we operate a lot of hives over a pretty large area. Control your varroa, keep young well bred queens in your hives and either get bees on some forage or supplement them as needed and stop listening to all the hand wringing by folks that have little to no beekeeping experience or those that have a political agenda. My only agenda is the health and well being of my bees and if I sense a problem you will most definitely be hearing from me. In the meantime I have to figure out what to do with all these bees in my hives.


----------



## SilverBack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



astrobee said:


> create a forum dedicated to pesticide/ccd for these discussions.


like


----------



## jonathan

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> You know who has helped me understand the neonic issue? Randy Oliver. He actually goes through all these studdies and red flags the agenda pushers. He knows the process, he understands a properly prepared study on a subject. He will go through a study related to honeybee health and bring it to a level beekeepers like me can understand.
> 
> I think he is the reason why beekeepers on this forum push back at agenda pushers now


I agree, but he has become one of the main targets of the anti neonicotinoid campaigners as he tries to take a balanced view of the risks and rewards associated with the stuff. The slurs against people like Randy Oliver and Jerry Bromenshenk are non stop all over the internet on the various campaigning websites.


----------



## beemandan

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Acebird said:


> Many people have wells that are not chlorinated and these people are probably more healthy than those drinking chlorinated water.


You're saying that if everyone in New York City (or urban location of your choosing) sunk their own wells for water....that they'd be healthier?


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



jonathan said:


> I agree, but he has become one of the main targets of the anti neonicotinoid campaigners as he tries to take a balanced view of the risks and rewards associated with the stuff. The slurs against people like Randy Oliver and Jerry Bromenshenk are non stop all over the internet on the various campaigning websites.


Let them, the proof is in the pudding, Randys popularity comes from his balanced perspective on the issues at hand. He helps us identify those agneda pushers.


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Sevaral great comments on this thread...... from the fact that chemicals like chlorine , and even Iodine... in sub lethal doses there great, but to much and its bad... its about Balance. Neonics are probably not good for bees, no one will dispute that not even the bi companys, but I don't belive they CAUSE CCD as I have been in the middle of them since they started.

What is missing from this discussion on the side of the naysayers, is the value of these chems and GMO...... These things change the way we feed the world. yields today are higher than they have ever been. Despite crackpot comments to the contrary, we yield more per acre than ever before. and the numbers continue to rise. This is a result if the things we want to change or eliminate. so unless your prepared to reduce the population of the world, and pay higher food prices in order to save your beehives you need to step back.

Rat poison is bad for you, if the kids get it its real bad. but put behind the refrigerator, its kinda handy........

Its about balance and common sense. The increase in yields for an entire area/world. is offset by some losses in bees? might be a fair trade. as for my bees inthe middle of the chem soup, my losses are normal, and honey production is just as good as ever.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Acebird said:


> Many people have wells that are not chlorinated and these people are probably more healthy than those drinking chlorinated water.


Most properties that do not have municipal water, and use wells for domestic water also have no municipal sewer system. That means they use individual septic systems. While a properly installed, maintained septic system is "safe", a septic system certainly can fail over time. And a failing septic system can contaminate well water, either yours, or your neighbors. The problem is compounded the closer each neighboring property is.

There are part of _this _county that rely on individual wells as water lines are not everywhere. Those well-dependent properties often have a *very *difficult time in years of low rainfall. The idea that individual domestic wells could replace municipal water systems, and improve the average resident's health is _nonsense_.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> Here is his website, if anyone is interested
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/
> 
> cerezha, you should read some of what he is saying. Dont take this invite to his page as an attack on your philosophy, your entitled to your opinion
> just read a bit about what Randy has to say


ian, thank you so much for posting this, i intended to but haven't had the chance. i have a research background and can assure everyone that randy's review, analysis, and critique of all of the information available on this subject is absolutely first class and trustworthy.



jonathan said:


> I agree, but he has become one of the main targets of the anti neonicotinoid campaigners as he tries to take a balanced view of the risks and rewards associated with the stuff. The slurs against people like Randy Oliver and Jerry Bromenshenk are non stop all over the internet on the various campaigning websites.


good point jonathan, and why are we not surprised by that? i would join ian and encourage anyone interested in this subject and and wants to develop an understanding of what is known and what is not known to spend some time reading randy's articles.

those of you who were critical of me for adding stromnessbees and borderbeeman to my 'ignore list' may be less critical after doing so.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

squarepeg, you have a research background?

sure dont push that fact around here to get your point across, do you,.lol


----------



## jonathan

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



gmcharlie said:


> Rat poison is bad for you, if the kids get it its real bad. but put behind the refrigerator, its kinda handy........


It is actually good for you if you have a heart condition and need anticoagulant. My 80 year old mother is on her 3rd pacemaker and has been on warfarin for over 30 years.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> squarepeg, you have a research background?
> 
> sure dont push that fact around here to get your point across, do you,.lol


i try not to ian, and it's in neurophysiology and not entomotology.

just a beginner when it comes to beekeeping......


----------



## JRG13

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Good post Charlie. I think the main issue at hand is getting meaningful studies done, studies that don't use highly customized statistical designs to get the results they want to see. Also, instead of fighting with the pesticide companies the beekeeping industry needs to get involved and work with them when testing new products and ensure meaningful studies are done so everyone can walk away happy.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
Heres a really disturbing report to mull over. Imagine what continuous exposure to say a 20% concentration of this stuff could do to you.


----------



## Scott Klein

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



gmcharlie said:


> Rat poison is bad for you, if the kids get it its real bad. but put behind the refrigerator, its kinda handy........
> 
> Its about balance and common sense. The increase in yields for an entire area/world. is offset by some losses in bees? might be a fair trade. as for my bees inthe middle of the chem soup, my losses are normal, and honey production is just as good as ever.


Common sense regarding balance suggests that top level predators are missing and so rat populations spike; top level predators are missing likely due to loss of habitat, loss of habitat is likely due to clear-cutting and poor agricultural practices, poor agricultural practices come from a desire to count quantity rather than quality, quantity requires fast and easy methods to be profitable, it's necessary to be profitable to afford rat poison (something like that).


----------



## jonathan

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



JRG13 said:


> Also, instead of fighting with the pesticide companies the beekeeping industry needs to get involved and work with them when testing new products and ensure meaningful studies are done so everyone can walk away happy.


The British Beekeepers Association tried this strategy, liaising with Bayer and Syngenta and taking sponsorship money. It became a PR disaster due to the perceived conflict of interest. Some things just don't sit well together.
I remember seeing a leaflet for a charity working with street children who abused solvents. It was part funded by the company which produced the glue they were sniffing. It leaves the organization vulnerable to those who have an axe to grind.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Hi Stromnessbees
> I have read your thread. Since, neonics affected neuron's connections, irreversibly, there are bunch of different things may happen in bees. ...
> 
> From another hand, as another "we" stated correctly, other factors may also contribute to CCD. It is unwise to blame only on neonics - complex approach is necessary.


Thanks for looking it up, Cerezha.

In my experience CCD is caused by exposure to neonics on its own, you don't need other factors. 

After the big poisoning event in Germany 2008 the Clothianidin treatement of maize got banned.
Unfortunately they had a huge unused stockpile of treated seed, which was apparently sold to Austria. 
Austrian farmers were sold the banned stuff from Germany by their cooperative, and that's when the big bee die-off started.
Very tellingly, only apiaries next to maize were affected in my home valley. I spoke to lots of beekeepers there, the correlation was clear. 
I inspected one of the dead apiaries myself, and it was classic CCD.
Nothing else had changed that season, the weather and varroa were no different from any other season. 

That's why Austrian beekeepers started to campaign against these pesticides, and they managed to get the EU debate going after a query by their ombudsman. 

I just wish, more beekeepers would realize how clear cut the connection is.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> I inspected one of the dead apiaries myself, and it was classic CCD.


Curious what you deem to be "classic CCD."


----------



## Barry

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Cam beat me to my first point!!

"I just wish, more beekeepers would realize how clear cut the connection is."

Wishing isn't going to make "it" more clear. If it's clear to you in your personal experience, fine. There has been adequate firsthand "realization" in this country that shows there isn't a clear connection. Why can't you accept that?


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Scott Klein said:


> Common sense regarding balance suggests that top level predators are missing and so rat populations spike; top level predators are missing likely due to loss of habitat, loss of habitat is likely due to clear-cutting and poor agricultural practices, poor agricultural practices come from a desire to count quantity rather than quality, quantity requires fast and easy methods to be profitable, it's necessary to be profitable to afford rat poison (something like that).


Boy is that a misleading statement. top level predotors? of rats??? you mean howks and owls?? we have more of them than ever before thanks to a ban on shooting the chicken stealing critters? how about coyotes? oh wait more that ever..... need to do some research and see how many RATS caused famine and plaque in europe...... what they would have done for some good ole decon in the 18th century!.... FYI we don't poisen rats for farming, we do it to live healthy....... rats in the house have been bad for 500 years, unless of course you live in a place they roast them to eat...... so lots not get sidetracked with some off the wall tangent... Point is these Chemicals, from cromium in the steel to neoinics in the corn, are in fact feeding the world. 
Arsenic in the water=bad Arsenic in rats= good.... all about balance (and yes I know we don't use arsenic anymore)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Stromnessbees said:


> _*In my experience*_ CCD is caused by exposure to neonics on its own, you don't need other factors.


In your experience? What experience is that? :scratch: Earlier you said ...



Stromnessbees said:


> I have no losses to report.
> 
> _*Neonicotinoids are not used where I keep my bees,*_ and with the exception of one small nuc which died of isloation starvation I have never lost a single colony during autumn, spring or winter, if a queen fails I unite with a nuc.


So you have _no _experience with neonicotinoids, and the rest is just conjecture .....


----------



## jonathan

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

And there is no varroa mite on the island either.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> In your experience? What experience is that?
> ...
> So you have _no _experience with neonicotinoids, and the rest is just conjecture .....


The fact that I have no neonic problems in my own hives doesn't mean that I can't go and work with other people that do.

I take up every opportunity possible to work with bees in the UK and abroad (Europe and Africa).


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

interesting comment.. Plan a trip over. I will SHOW you healthy hives in the middle of the stew... and let you see for yourself.....


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Barry said:


> There has been adequate firsthand "realization" in this country that shows there isn't a clear connection. Why can't you accept that?


Just wanted to have that point repeated !


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> .... *Chlorine is a deadly chemical*. So, under your proposal, chlorine should not be allowed in water treatment plants.....


 Ooooo
Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about *Chlorine*. Yes, *Chlorine, Cl2* is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is *sodium, Na*. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2

NaCl2 is a table salt and much-much less dangerous than individual chlorine and sodium... Did you follow? The idea is that when elements are combined, resulting "salt" has entirely different properties. In our case, "sodium chloride", table salt is eatable in reasonable quantities. Got it? Now - nobody in right mind would use a chemical weapon gas chlorine to disinfect your water supply, they used "sodium hypochlorite" - could you make a connection? It IS salt.

Sodium hypochlorite has a short life and disintegrates pretty quickly. The idea behind of using it to disinfect the drinking water was that chemical shall disintegrate in the pipes just before it reaches your faucet. In reality, many water=treatment plants broke the rules and add too much chemical. Since, chemical overdose become an everyday practice, people become concern and now, in most places they used fluoride salts instead chlorine. Fluoride *salts* are beneficial for your teeth. Also,most advanced water plants are using *ozone*,which is O3 and decompose creating short lived active oxygen species (not salt!!!!!) for disinfection. I believe, that all advanced countries including Europe and Japan (not US, sorry) banned ANY chlorine for water treatment at least 20 years ago. 

So, the bottom line - learn chemistry and you will not ask stupid questions. Nothing personal, just friendly suggestion.

I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things. Just thinking that military chemical weapon banned 100 years ago in Europe may be used to treat drinking water... it must be very stressful living with such idea everyday life...


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> So, the bottom line - learn chemistry and you will not ask stupid questions. Nothing personal, just friendly suggestion.
> 
> I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things.


are you kidding me ! ? maybe you have the wrong forum Sergey, I dont think you belong here, nothing personal, just a friendly suggestion


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> Here is his website, if anyone is interested
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/
> 
> cerezha, you should read some of what he is saying. Dont take this invite to his page as an attack on your philosophy, your entitled to your opinion
> just read a bit about what Randy has to say


I am familiar with this. 
I read this: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neo...f-the-science/#trying-to-make-sense-of-it-all
Randy was trying to balance between two fundamentals, academic science and field experience. I have to admit, that in my opinion, he failed in both. My interpretation of his statements as following:
- he thinks that authorities do a reasonable good job accessing the danger of the neonics. "EPA and EPPO, with guidance from SETAC and The International Commission for Plant–Bee Relationships." must be in charge.
- he and FDA felt that "field" experiments must have more "weight" versus "lab". The idea is that pesticide acts differently in the field. Randy criticize most lab experiments on these grounds- that it is not possible to reproduce the "field" in the lab. 
- he thinks that in most academic research, substance was overdosed or improperly admitted. He also find bunch of methodical flaws, which makes research data (in his opinion) irrelevant to the subject.
- his main argument is that "it was reported" (no reference) that bees in the "corn belt" and on canola in Canada are doing just fine - this argument over-weighted all research science in Randy's opinion.

So, *my personal *conclusion is:
- he is trying to balance two VERY different things, academic research and "the field" experience. They are not comparable because science is quantitative approach and "field experience" is more emotional, political and economical. As a result, his arguments are not impressive in both.
- Criticizing science, he used quantitative data from publications (stating that approach was wrong for some reason). As a counterweight, he was using this "corn belt" argument, that bees are doing well being exposed to neonics. It sounded pathetic, because he referred to unknown, unpublished source -no data, just emotions. This - makes his all construction unreliable.
- his citations are funny. Under the argument that he presented only "downloadable" papers, he created non-representative selection of the publications. I need to read all of them to see if there is any bias in his selection. I reluctant to do so. But, he is a scientist. His citation approach is not appropriate for scientist. 

I feel sorry for him- he was trying to find a peaceful middle with little success (to me). I am sure, his intentions were good and he sincerely believe that his approach is (?) balanced.

My personal opinion is that Randy's approach to relay on EPA for "risk assessment" is a mistake. EPA and FDA did so many mistakes approving products and than few years later banning them, that I personally do not trust them. Just remember that derivative of "agent orange" was approved to use on the farmland! "Corn belt" argument may be a good one if confirmed by reputable source- but, in the way how it was presented - it may not be used in decision making process on neonics.

Final disclosure: In my posts, I had no intention to limit CCD cause only to neonics. Many other known and unknown factors could contribute to CCD. I personally have no experience with CCD. From another hand, I feel, that my expertise is sufficient to have educated opinion on harmful nature of neonics.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> are you kidding me ! ? maybe you have the wrong forum Sergey, I dont think you belong here, nothing personal, just a friendly suggestion


 Of coarse not. What makes you think that I can be a part of this? I definitely from another planet... we have only one thing in common (if you agree) - we have bees.


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Ooooo
> Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about *Chlorine*. Yes, *Chlorine, Cl2* is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is *sodium, Na*. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2
> 
> NaCl2 is a table salt <large snip>


Table salt is NaCl *not* NaCl2 which would be electrically unstable and so unable to exist.

I have no ax to grind in this, (neonics aren't used where my bees are), but as I see it.....
1. neonics are systemic insecticides ergo they can and are found in *all* parts of the treated plant.
2. insecticides kill insects, bees are insects.
3. neonics are neurotoxic so the effects are hard to quantify in a species that tends to go of to die away from the colony.

Oh yeah as a researcher (my field is lateral gene transfer in microorganisms), it's hard to get funding for projects that go against the status quo, so in a field dominated by big chemical producers, it's hard to get a study going that might prove harmful to these interests, especially if they fund some part of the organisation under which the research is wanting to work.

Cheers, Thomas.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> I do not mind to "educate" people at beesource, but it is so annoying to observe ignorance in very simple things. Just thinking that military chemical weapon banned 100 years ago in Europe may be used to treat drinking water... it must be very stressful living with such idea everyday life...


Well, you are confused. I made no mention of chlorine being used as a military weapon.

I simply pointed out that _chlorine_ is used in municipal water treatment systems. You seem to believe that that statement is wrong. Well, the City of Muskogee OK is happy to tell you about their use of *chlorine *in their water system:



> Disinfection of water supplies in the United States is almost always accomplished by using *chlorine*. Disinfection with *chlorine*, combined with the other surface water treatment processes has greatly reduced the incidence of water-borne disease among humans in the United States. It is this proven record and the familiarity with *chlorine *that makes *chlorine *the disinfecting agent used at most systems. There are three basic reasons that *chlorine *is usually the disinfectant of choice.
> 
> 1. *Chlorine *is the most cost-effective disinfectant available considering its disinfecting power.
> 2. *Chlorine *is easily obtained through a variety of sources.
> 3. *Chlorine *produces a disinfecting residual. However, it should also be said that there are also two clear disadvantages or drawbacks to the use of chlorine.
> 4. *Chlorine *must be used and handled very carefully to prevent serious hazards to operators and the public.
> 5. *Chlorine *can sometimes form trihalomethanes (THMs) in water supples. Concentrations of THMs above the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are suspected of causing cancer.
> 
> _The complete page is here:
> _http://www.cityofmuskogee.com/shell.asp?pg=131


Its really _good-hearted_ of you to take your valuable time to "educate" little old ignorant me. But it would be much better if you got your facts _correct _first.

Even the City of Santa Monica CA, where you say you live, has *chlorine* in its water system.  You can read the report here:
http://www.smgov.net/departments/publicworks/CSMWQR12Final.pdf


----------



## hpm08161947

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Ooooo
> Fun is beginning! Ok,let's talk about *Chlorine*. Yes, *Chlorine, Cl2* is a deadly chemical. Cl2 was used as a chemical weapon in Europe during first world war. Another deadly (even worse) chemical is *sodium, Na*. Did they teach you some chemistry in school? Cl2 +2* Na = NaCl2
> 
> NaCl2 is a table salt and much-much less dangerous than individual chlorine and sodium... Did you follow?


NaCl..... not NaCL2, perhaps you are referring to another salt... CaCl2?

BTW... what type of research are you involved in? Nothing involving chemistry I gather.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Randy was trying to balance between two fundamentals, academic science and field experience. I have to admit, that in my opinion, he failed in both.


Well, thought youd say something like that, 
that is about as far as I needed to read, Im sure you had something smart to say, I really am not interested anymore
good luck with all that Sergey , bye


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Pretty weak hearing Randy getting critiqued by a rookie beekeeper thats struggling with basic chemistry. He did say, though, that the fun was just beginning. I guess he was right about that.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

of course randy is trying to balance the science with the field work, the article you read was published in the 'american bee journal'. it was written to a beekeeping audience

here is the most recent review:

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


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Strom, still waiting for that definition of "classic CCD" or do you just ignore questions you can't answer?


----------



## wildbranch2007

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> Strom, still waiting for that definition of "classic CCD" or do you just ignore questions you can't answer?


I think she is afraid to talk or else barry may do what they did in england



Stromnessbees 
Banned <-------
About MeStatistics
About Stromnessbees
Biography
studied ecolgy & entomology in Austria
Location
Scotland
Interests
organic farming
Main Hive type used
Smith
Average number of colonies owned
15+
Gender
female


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Might want to consider this study, naw, makes too much sense, and it's authored by Oliver and Adee and what do they know?:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-new-large-scale-trial-of-clothianidin/


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> Strom, still waiting for that definition of "classic CCD" or do you just ignore questions you can't answer?


Which one would you like covered?
CCD	Charge-Coupled Device (type of image sensor)
CCD	Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (Catholic religious education)
CCD	Camouflage, Concealment, & Deception
CCD	Census County Division
CCD	Common Core of Data (US Department of Education)
CCD	Colony Collapse Disorder (bee colony)
CCD	Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
CCD	Continuity of Care Document (clinical information)
CCD	Convention to Combat Desertification
CCD	Council of Canadians with Disabilities (Conseil des Canadiens avec Déficiences)
CCD	Concatenated Disk (driver)
CCD	Cortical Collecting Duct
CCD	Central Core Disease
CCD	Centro Cristiano Democratico (Italian: Christian Democratic Center)
CCD	Centro Cristiano Democratico (Christian Democratic Center; Italian political party)
CCD	Cafe Coffee Day (India)
CCD	Center for Culinary Development
CCD	Carbonate Compensation Depth (geology)
CCD	City and County of Denver (Colorado)
CCD	Cold Cathode Discharge
CCD	Cleidocranial Dysplasia
CCD	Construction Career Days
CCD	Cash Concentration and Disbursement
CCD	Consumer Credit Directive (UK)
CCD	Closed Caption Decoder
CCD	Counter Current Decantation (mineral processing)
CCD	Continuous Collision Detection (computational collision detection)
CCD	Charge-Coupled Detector
CCD	Conference of the Committee on Disarmament
CCD	Coalition For Cultural Diversity (Quebec)
CCD	Consular Consolidated Database
CCD	Coherent Change Detection (image processing)
CCD	Construction Change Directive
CCD	Convention de Lutte Contre La Désertification (French: Convention to Combat Desertification; UN)
CCD	Corporate Communications Department
CCD	Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment (India)
CCD	Centre for Communication and Development (Bangladesh)
CCD	Certified Clinical Densitometrist (bone density certification)
CCD	Computer Controlled Display
CCD	Contract Completion Date
CCD	Closed Cycle Diesel
CCD	Chemical Composition Distribution
CCD	Convention Internationale de Lutte Contre La Désertification (French: International Convention to Combat Desertification)
CCD	Commission Coopération Développement (French: Committee on Cooperation and Development; est. 1984)
CCD	Chemical Control Division (EPA)
CCD	Computer Crimes Division
CCD	County Conservation Districts
CCD	Counseling and Career Development
CCD	Common Connectivity Device
CCD	Consumer and Computation Division (Cypress Semiconductor Corporation; San Jose, CA)
CCD	Courage the Cowardly Dog (cartoon show)
CCD	Chattahoochee Country Dancers (Atlanta, GA)
CCD	Conference on Copyright for Digital Millennium
CCD	Calcium Compensation Depth (oceanography)
CCD	Coastal Conservation Department
CCD	Catalytic Combustion Detector
CCD	Catholic Christian Doctrine (common, but incorrect)
CCD	Conceptual Common Denominator
CCD	Configuration Control Decision
CCD	Certified Camp Director
CCD	Committee on Commerce and Distribution
CCD	Center for Character Development
CCD	Center for Culture and Development (various locations)
CCD	Configuration Control Document(s)
CCD	Certified Christian Doula
CCD	Communauté de Communes du Diois
CCD	Central City Dump
CCD	Cambodian Community Day (Cambodia)
CCD	Construction Completion Date
CCD	Changeling Control Division (comic strip)
CCD	Chair Command Disconnect
CCD	Category Code Directory
CCD	Constants Change Display (NASA)
CCD	Checkout Command Decoder
CCD	Comite Civil de Dialogo (Spanish: Civil Dialogue Committee; Zapatista National Liberation Front; Mexico)
CCD	Civil Censorship Division (Civil Intelligence Section, Supreme Command, Allied Powers of the Far East Command)
CCD	Category Class Diagram
CCD	Center for Clean Development
CCD	Combat Capability Document (US Air Force)
CCD	Call Center Dashboard (shortcuts that automatically open applications in a call center)
CCD	Concept Capability Demonstrator (EU)
CCD	Complementary Coded Decimal
CCD	Computerized Circuit Design, Inc.
CCD	Chartered Creative Director (AAPRMA)
CCD	Committed Completion Date
CCD	Central Cloudy Dystrophy (eye disorder)
CCD	Continental Communications Division
CCD	Configuration Control Drawing
CCD	Coarse Control Damper
CCD	Category Code Document
CCD	Cursor Controlled Device
CCD	Correspondence Control Division (White House)
CCD	Ciena CoreDirector (Ciena)
CCD	Configuration Control Directive
CCD	Critically Controlled Document
CCD	City Civil Defense Director
CCD	Committee on Corporate Development
CCD	Central Coordination Disturbance
CCD	Central Cell Density
CCD	California Conservatory of Dance (Mission Viejo, CA)
CCD	Corporate Customer Database (AAFES)
CCD	Client Contractual Dependency
CCD	Conception Coordination Décoration (French design company)
CCD	Creative Communications & Design (est. 2003; Macedonia, OH)
CCD	Center for Constitutional Dialogue (Nepal)
CCD	Customer Care Department
CCD	Comprehensive Child Development
CCD	Control of Communicable Diseases (various locations)
CCD	Christian Commission for Development (est. 1982)
CCD	Comfortable Clothing Day
CCD	Centros Comunitarios Digitales (Spanish: Digital Community Centres; Mexico)
CCD	Course Code Directory (Florida Department of Education)
CCD	Comprehensive Community Development
CCD	Climate Change Division (various locations)
CCD	City Centre Development (various locations)
CCD	Combatant Craft Division (US DoD)


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Assuming that the above prefers Colony Collapse Disorder. I found this.

Colony collapse disorder (CCD) is a phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive or European honey bee colony abruptly disappear. While such disappearances have occurred throughout the history of apiculture, the term colony collapse disorder was first applied to a drastic rise in the number of disappearances of Western honey bee colonies in North America in late 2006.

Previously I made the comparison that Neonics and CCD have appeared in roughly the same time frame. I received a reply that CCD has accoured prior to the development of neonics. the above says they did not. CCD did not exist according to the above until 2006. You can decide if it was in 2006 that the condition get it's new name. or that it in fact did not exist. I tend to think that something different is happening and the evidence is it was given a different name.

Also you cannot define something that no one knows what it is.

"Multiple possible causes of CCD have been identified. In 2007, some authorities attributed the problem to biotic factors such as Varroa mites and insect diseases (i.e., pathogens[5] including Nosema apis and Israel acute paralysis virus).[6][7] Other proposed causes include environmental change-related stresses,[8] malnutrition, pesticides (e.g.. neonicotinoids such as clothianidin and imidacloprid[9][10][11]), and migratory beekeeping. More speculative possibilities have included both cell phone radiation[12][13] and genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics."

Notice above neonicotinoids are specifically listed. with no known answer. none are exempt from suspicion. To give exemption is foolhardy. Neonics are guilty because CCD exists and they are on the list.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Still waiting for Strom to reply. She's the one who made the statement. I've read many definitions of CCD.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

dan, i'm not aware of anyone who has exempted neonics as a possible factor, are you?

being guilty and being on the list of possible suspects are two different things, no?


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> of course randy is trying to balance the science with the field work, the article you read was published in the 'american bee journal'. it was written to a beekeeping audience
> 
> here is the most recent review:
> 
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/


That's what I like about Randy, he is able to explain things relevant to beekeepers. I cant comb over every detail in a study, I need someone who I can trust to present me with the findings, in an un biased fashion


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> dan, i'm not aware of anyone who has exempted neonics as a possible factor, are you?
> 
> being guilty and being on the list of possible suspects are two different things, no?


your exactly right squarepeg


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> dan, i'm not aware of anyone who has exempted neonics as a possible factor, are you?
> 
> being guilty and being on the list of possible suspects are two different things, no?


My personal opinion is that neonics can be much more of a problem when combined with other things, particularity fungicides and miteicides. By themselves I have noticed no problems where my hives are located. My worst poisoning was from fungicides sprayed in an apple orchard. No neonics within 10 miles.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

we use fungicides on a lot of our field crops, I have not seen anything unusual after spraying. do you know what they are spraying on the apples?


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Not sure, it was the adjoining orchard. But when I took my bees into the orchard they were strong, mostly 7-8 frames. They were going downhill at petal drop and then some took until July to recover and some haven't made the winter. I suspect pollen poisoning.Maybe some pesticide residue in the tanks. I spoke to the farmer and he refused to tell me what it was, just "it won't hurt your bees. Some of the spray was withing 50 yards of my hives.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> Not sure, it was the adjoining orchard. But when I took my bees into the orchard they were strong, mostly 7-8 frames. They were going downhill at petal drop and then some took until July to recover and some haven't made the winter. I suspect pollen poisoning.Maybe some pesticide residue in the tanks. I spoke to the farmer and he refused to tell me what it was, just "it won't hurt your bees. Some of the spray was withing 50 yards of my hives.


This is all quite believable. Maybe your response to his comment should have been "I sure hope not because if there is something in there killing my bees then I might lose my bees and you might not get much of an apple crop this year either". I am convinced that fungicides are detrimental to bees to some degree based on some peculiarities that I have observed in some hives that have just come off of the Almonds. The signs do seem to disappear pretty quickly though.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

He had a beekeeper bring in bees 2 days later. My farmer wanted bees at King bloom so I was in early. Don't know how the other beekeeper fared. Not going back there this year. Maybe I need to quit pollination altogether. I have some small contracts that are pretty good and I'll keep those but those orchard forests may be too toxic.


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> But when I took my bees into the orchard they were strong, mostly 7-8 frames. They were going downhill at petal drop and then some took until July to recover and some haven't made the winter.


And you pollinate apples because...why? Now you know why I quit after 20 years.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I'm joining you! I'm also not pollinating cran anymore. Too much trouble with the hives after coming out. I lost money on my pollination contracts this year. Sucks, thought it would work out. Should have asked you.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

This will make Strom scream
http://www.mondaq.com/x/224116/Life+Sciences+Biotechnology/EFSA+Restrictions+For+Neonicotinoids

there was insufficient data to conclude there was any link between the use of neonicotinoids and "bee colony collapse disorder," a key contributor to increases in bee colony decline.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

interesting link cam.

despite the lack of any tangible results one way or the other, it looks like the eu commission is still considering a vote soon to suspend neonic use for two years, even though it will mean 20% in the yields of some crops and considerable economic loss.

it will be interesting to see how they vote. 

i am not aware of any such measures being contemplated on this side of the atlantic.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> I'm joining you! I'm also not pollinating cran anymore. Too much trouble with the hives after coming out. I lost money on my pollination contracts this year. Sucks, thought it would work out. Should have asked you.


Are their pesticide problems in cranberry or is it just the poor quality of the pollen and lack of nectar?


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I think it's suspicious in the extreme that neonics came on to the market in 2003 and CCD got its recognition in 2006. Is it just the neonics? Probably not, what no-one seems to be testing for is synergism between these and the plethora of other agrichemicals used to control other pests and diseases. Why they aren't testing for this is obvious, the number of variables is huge and the complexity of such a study would be quite extreme and so equally expensive to run.

BTW I think it very bad form to personally attack someone for expressing an opinion, Stromnessbees has done nothing but ask a question based on their current understanding of the science. Is their understanding right or wrong? I don't know, but they have a right to question and postulate, and we had/have the right to answer and expand on the science and so either confirm or disprove things. 

What we don't have a right to do is to vilify and insult a person just because their reading lead them to a different understanding of the facts. <--this is separate because I think it's an important point that should not be missed.....


----------



## Acebird

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



beemandan said:


> You're saying that if everyone in New York City (or urban location of your choosing) sunk their own wells for water....that they'd be healthier?


Good God no. I am saying there are too many people living close together that they are contaminated by their own waste. Same problem with slaughter houses. They use antibiotics because the animals are wallowing in there own poop. Too close together. Chlorine is use to burn up organic matter in the water supply, bacteria and such. If your drinking water is not contained in 5 miles of underground pipes which may or may not be breached you don't need chlorine.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, you are confused... ....


 Yes Graham
and I am really apologize for my "lecture" and not appropriate personal attack on you. I was not aware that chlorine-gas is still in use in US. If chlorine-gas is in use, your argument is very good - if they could use military combatant gas in drinking water, than of coarse they could use neonics on bees.... it is fair argument, you won this battle. Again, my sincere apology for not-nice post to everyone, who was affected. Sergey


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



praxis178 said:


> Table salt is NaCl *not* NaCl2 which would be electrically unstable and so unable to exist...


Yes, many thanks for correction. That post was really bad. I apologize for that. Also, apparently, all my "schema" did not work because chlorine gas is used in drinking water these days in US. Shame on me - I was so ignorant and did not check... Sergey


----------



## Kieck

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> I think it's suspicious in the extreme that neonics came on to the market in 2003 and CCD got its recognition in 2006. -praxis178


No, that's not right. Neonicotinoids were created in the late 70s or early 80s, and first entered the market in about 1990. Imidacloprid specifically entered the market in 1992. Its use increased rapidly. The amount used in the US peaked in 2003, dropped back each year until 2009, and started increasing again in 2010.

The amount used in 2006 was very similar to the amount used in 2000.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

don't worry about it sergery. spirited discussion and debate are what makes this forum great.

my point of view has been changed from time to time thanks to the willingness of those here that are willing to share theirs.

the only thing that i find difficult to accept is when someone takes a position but cannot offer a reasonable underlying rationale for it.

and when competing rationales are offered, and at the end of the day, we all get to decide for ourselves what our personal take is.

welcome to america!


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> dan, i'm not aware of anyone who has exempted neonics as a possible factor, are you?
> 
> being guilty and being on the list of possible suspects are two different things, no?


True, But that justify use until otherwise proven a problem? Seems like the worst possible case course of action. or could be. And yes I admit even for me it is only a "Could Be". So do we cause companies with millions invested to suffer loss. do we cause beekeepers to suffer billions in losses? 

I really think that is what is being discussed here. various people have there various views and each chooses how to present that view. that is fine.

The opinion that catches my attention is the one that says. "I want proof they are a problem" Yet that very same person sees no need for proof they are safe. that is inconsistent. This inconsistency catches my attention. it raises a bit of a red flag. It does not make since to me and I will admit I still have not made since of it. It just does not fit.

The same requirement they claim to have for showing that pesticides do harm bees they have a total lack of requirement for them to be shown safe. So I know one thing they are not concerned with proof of any kind. they just say they are. Now so that others do not think such a person is a total ogar. I will say this could happen simply because someone really wants to believe there is now a safe alternative. they may genuinely see that thing are better now than they where. It could be a primidonna type opinion that things will be better. It comes from the same genuine concern for the honey bee as every other opinion. it is just formed from different choices as to what to believe or not. I believe actions. I believe results. Results indicate better than anything else what can be expected next. The factual events is Neonics have only been evaluated by obviously unreliable sources. and by unreliable tests. Why the need for unreliable if in fact they are safe? I don't think all these shady things happened by accident and I don't think they happened without reasons. They in fact acted in this way. they in fact made these choices. and there is in fact reason for those decisions. and I don't think bad decisions are made to achieve good results. They made shady choices because they are in fact trying to pull a fast one. and that is all the proof I need. All that is left to do is dig in and find out what they are really up to. and no way it will be good.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

guilty until proven innocent . . .


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> The factual events is Neonics have only been evaluated by obviously unreliable sources. and by unreliable tests.


This is where we differ - there have been, IMO, reliable tests from very reliable sources that show that neonics are so much better than the organophosphates, both for humans and for bees.


----------



## Kieck

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> The factual events is Neonics have only been evaluated by obviously unreliable sources. and by unreliable tests. -Daniel Y


I'm not sure what you believe to be "reliable" versus "unreliable." Neonicotinoids certainly do pose threats to bees, as well as almost every other insect. The problem to me comes from the emphatic assertions that "neonicotinoids cause CCD." I see no cause-and-effect link. They almost certainly contribute to problems, maybe even contribute to CCD, but they do not seem to be the single cause.

Maybe you term me as "unreliable." Not much I can do about that if you do. A few years ago, I was involved in some pesticide research as part of a job I had. I worked with any number of insecticides, mostly to determine efficacies, rates, and even assess some new products that were not (and some still are not) on the market. The position was a government position, was not funded by chemical companies, and some of the research demonstrated that products did not always work as intended. Not only that, some of the insecticides were not effective against the target insects as they were labeled for application.

Back in 2007, as part of a post in a thread here on Beesource, I posted this:



> Just to give some more specific information, some of the test plots where different insecticides are compared are less than one mile from one of my bee yards. I have helped apply pesticides to those plots for the last two years, usually spraying some of bees in the process. Those bees have been sprayed with almost every form of neonicotinoid on the market, most forms of pyrethroids available, organophosphates, carbamates, and so on. While I have witnessed some pesticide poisoning among those bees from time to time, I have not lost any other those hives to pesticide poisoning or to CCD. Nothing statistical about those observations, but they do pretty well eliminate the simple "cause-and-effect" idea about neonicotinoids and CCD. Not only were those bees exposed to low doses of neonicotinoids, they were exposed to high doses (foliar applications, made while the bees were working), and for two consecutive years. -Kieck


The thread can be found here, if anyone is interested: http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...icides-neonicotinoids&highlight=neonicotinoid

Those fields included test plots treated with every neonicotinoid on the market as seed treatments and as foliar treatments, as well as a wide range of classes of insecticides. It included insecticides that have yet to reach the market and maybe never will. I left that job in 2009.

As of yet, I have not seen first-hand anything that could realistically be considered CCD. I consider myself fortunate, but I am also convinced by this that it is not a simple cause-and-effect of neonicotinoids (or other pesticides). If it was, it should not have failed to appear in those hives. Those were the only managed hives within four miles of the test plots, and almost certainly the source of the bees that I observed in those plots while spraying.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I've posted this before, but it really summarizes what I think causes most problems with our bees. Do insecticides play a part, I believe so. But also fungicides, miticides, etc. But virus issues, vectored by varroa are the real culprit. IMO, keep varroa under control and the other issues are manageable.

PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043562. Epub 2012 Aug 21.
Pathogen webs in collapsing honey bee colonies.
Cornman RS, Tarpy DR, Chen Y, Jeffreys L, Lopez D, Pettis JS, vanEngelsdorp D, Evans JD.
Source

Bee Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland, United States of America.
Abstract

Recent losses in honey bee colonies are unusual in their severity, geographical distribution, and, in some cases, failure to present recognized characteristics of known disease. Domesticated honey bees face numerous pests and pathogens, tempting hypotheses that colony collapses arise from exposure to new or resurgent pathogens. Here we explore the incidence and abundance of currently known honey bee pathogens in colonies suffering from Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), otherwise weak colonies, and strong colonies from across the United States. Although pathogen identities differed between the eastern and western United States, there was a greater incidence and abundance of pathogens in CCD colonies. Pathogen loads were highly covariant in CCD but not control hives, suggesting that CCD colonies rapidly become susceptible to a diverse set of pathogens, or that co-infections can act synergistically to produce the rapid depletion of workers that characterizes the disorder. We also tested workers from a CCD-free apiary to confirm that significant positive correlations among pathogen loads can develop at the level of individual bees and not merely as a secondary effect of CCD. This observation and other recent data highlight pathogen interactions as important components of bee disease. Finally, we used deep RNA sequencing to further characterize microbial diversity in CCD and non-CCD hives. We identified novel strains of the recently described Lake Sinai viruses (LSV) and found evidence of a shift in gut bacterial composition that may be a biomarker of CCD. The results are discussed with respect to host-parasite interactions and other environmental stressors of honey bees.

PMID:
22927991
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 
PMCID:
PMC3424165

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22927991

full paper free at the above link.


----------



## JRG13

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I agree with you on that one Camero. Even if my goal was to develop treatment free stock, once I get there, I'm going to work in a Fall mite treatment to start spring as clean as possible as needed. Harboring pests/vectors with your resistant/tolerant lines is just askiing for them to break it and I think a few people have experienced similar situations last year/this year where they were comfortable with seeing mites and some DWV with no issues in the past, now they've lost a good percentage of their hives and are seriously rethinking that strategy of just letting it go. Other factors could be in play though, but I think controlling your vectors is key, most resistances/tolerance have a threshold and bees are too dynamic to rely on any one strategy IMO.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

good stuff, thanks ya'll.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> ...welcome to america!


 Thank you!


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Thank you!


you are very welcome my russian friend. i appreciate your contributions to the forum.


----------



## oldforte

cerezha said:


> Do you feel better if you shut up different opinion(s)? You are very naive if think that you are in power to change somebody. People just drift away from this source. As a result, you guys could enjoy yourself... references to the absence of the "facts" is just pathetic and sad. If somebody is not capable to learn something new outside of the box, than, yes, for this blind mind - there are no "facts"! Why, because, facts are outside of the box. My apology, nothing personal.


"absence of "facts" is pathetic and sad". That is a sad comentary. Please look up* conjecture *in the dictionary. The primary reason for this thread was that someone presented the subject as being "factual". AND IT WAS NOT! Amen.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



cerezha said:


> Again, my sincere apology for not-nice post to everyone, who was affected. Sergey


oldforte, i think sergey realized it was a bad post and apologized. i say we forgive him, amen?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I will correct my comment and remove the "Only" Since it is impossible for me to know every study made of these pesticides. I should have said the only studies I know of where done by unreliable sources. mainly allowing Bayer to test their own products.

I also do not agree there is enough evidence to say these pesticides are the sole cause of anything.

Consider this though. Neonicotinoids is just a fancy pants way of saying Nicotine. Since when is that considered harmless?


----------



## Acebird

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

How much nicotine is present when we smoke our bees?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Okay, that last one is an example of just how far off conjuncture can get. Nicotine is a chemical present in the tobacco. tobacco actually produces it. This does not mean that everything that smokes has nicotine in it. The truth is it is not the nicotine in tobacco that is bad. it is all the other garbage they put in it to make commercial cigarettes. but that is another very long discussion.

Anyway the amount of nicotine when you smoke your bees will depend on the amount of nicotine in the material you are burning. Nicotine will survive being burned. it will survive passing through a plant is it grows. it will remain in the nectar and it will survive the process of being made into honey. It will also remain in your bee. The reason you cannot detect it is because you cannot separate it from what it is bonded to in order to detect it. One way to come up with clean tests is to test in a way that cannot possible show any result but negative. You know that little question sheet they give you at the end of a training. that one that you cannot possibly fail. they call that a test also.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> I will correct my comment and remove the "Only" Since it is impossible for me to know every study made of these pesticides. I should have said the only studies I know of where done by unreliable sources. mainly allowing Bayer to test their own products.


The study I posted above was not done by Bayer, maybe you should read it.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Daniel Y said:


> Anyway the amount of nicotine when you smoke your bees will depend on the amount of nicotine in the material you are burning. Nicotine will survive being burned. it will survive passing through a plant is it grows. it will remain in the nectar and it will survive the process of being made into honey. It will also remain in your bee.


I've been hearing about tobbacco as smoker fuel all my life, but never tried it. However, last year, acquired some tobbacco seeds which I planted, and ended up with 96 tobbacco plants. Harvested the leaves, and now I roll a couple into each sack roll that goes into the smoker.

A rather pungent smoke, but does burn well the smoker will always put out o good cloud of smoke when I want it. Had been told you can see varroa mites drop off the bees if you use tobbacco so been looking out for that, but no luck.

No ill effects of the bees though. Are neonicitiniods really nicotine? Or something like it, or what?


----------



## JRG13

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

How I miss using nicotine bombs in the gh too... I think Jerry Brown was the guys name, whoever that gardner on public tv was, he was always making concoctions out of household stuff to treat your plants. He would make a tea from chewing tobaco to add into his stuff to kill insects.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Oldtimer said:


> No ill effects of the bees though. Are neonicitiniods really nicotine? Or something like it, or what?


Aw come on haven't you learned anything from all the "discussion" on here? And yes they are a form of nicotine. I wouldn't even be surprised if there are some on the Forum who grow it, consume it, and then suspect it may be killing their bees. Just because they can't be detected dosent mean they aren't there and just because your bees are looking good dosent mean they shouldn't be looking even better. If you have ever lost a hive or ever had a queen that didn't last as long as you would like then that should be all the proof you need that neonicitinoids are the culprit hiding there below LOD laying waste to all your diligent beekeeping.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Oldtimer said:


> Are neonicitiniods really nicotine? Or something like it, or what?


They have a _similar _molecular structure ...









but are _not _the same. Otherwise neonicotinoids would have been available decades earlier. This study examines the similar effects of nicotine and neonicitiniods  on *mammals*.




> Acetamiprid (ACE) and imidacloprid (IMI) belong to a new, widely used class of pesticide, the neonicotinoids. With similar chemical structures to nicotine, neonicotinoids also share agonist activity at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). Although their toxicities against insects are well established, their precise effects on mammalian nAChRs remain to be elucidated. Because of the importance of nAChRs for mammalian brain function, especially brain development, detailed investigation of the neonicotinoids is needed to protect the health of human children. We aimed to determine the effects of neonicotinoids on the nAChRs of developing mammalian neurons and compare their effects with nicotine, a neurotoxin of brain development.
> ......
> 
> *Conclusions*
> This study is the first to show that ACE, IMI, and nicotine exert similar excitatory effects on mammalian nAChRs at concentrations greater than 1 µM. Therefore, the neonicotinoids may adversely affect human health, especially the developing brain.
> 
> _Full document here:
> _http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032432


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I believe those were all rat studies. Often don't translate to humans, although RR may qualify.


----------



## Kieck

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



> They have a similar molecular structure ... -Radar Sidetrack


Exactly.

In an "evolutionary arms race," plants that are damaged by insects evolve by relying on adaptations to reduce the damage done by herbivores. Some plants grow extra hairs, some produce thorns or spines, some have tough coverings, some make chemicals that make them unpalatable or even toxic. The insects adapt to those, and the plants adapt again. And so on. We end up with plants that produce some nasty methods to avoid being eaten by insects (and other creatures) and insects that can eat some nasty stuff.

Tobacco plants are an example of a plant that produced a toxin to reduce herbivory by insects. That toxin is nicotine. Nicotine is sold in a purified form for use as an insecticide, too.

Nicotine is harmful to bees, as well.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

.
Hey thanks for that Radar Sidetrack, good to see some actual chemistry on this.




jim lyon said:


> Aw come on haven't you learned anything from all the "discussion" on here?


About neonics being the cause of everything? well, with the more balanced opinions that have been presented I'm even less convinced we need to ban neonics than I was before. But still open to further education, either way.

I think i've actually learned more, about the Beesource membership. Which on the neonics issue, makes up a bell curve. The overwhelming majority are in the middle with an open minded and balanced view on the issue. As we move towards the two opposing edges of the bell curve attitudes get a bit more narrow, till we end up with a small number of members with pretty extreme views, right down to just the most extreme two or three, at each end, the most worrysome ones at the end believing that neonicitiniods are behind every problem that exists, and in fact thet we should even discontinue beekeeping if ever affected by some symptom.

Overall though the wisdom of the whole group is excellent and discussion robust.


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Oldtimer said:


> Overall though the wisdom of the whole group is excellent and discussion robust.


yep, nice post ot.


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> I believe those were all rat studies. Often don't translate to humans, although RR may qualify.


Um, I'm not them, but I do work in the bio-medical science field. 

All mammals have (with very minor differences) the same nicotinic receptor systems, so if it affects rats you can be sure it affects humans (we get addicted to nicotine after all). The use of rats for this study was a costs and ethics decision, rats cost less and have a low ethics approval requirement than the use of human subjects..... 

So to put this another way, would you be happy if we laced our baby food with nicotine? I know this is a VERY polarized and extreme example, but the premise holds, we don't allow the harm of our infants so why do we set up our bees to HAVE to <potentially, the jury is still out> harm theirs?


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

>we don't allow the harm of our infants so why do we set up our bees to HAVE to <potentially, the jury is still out> harm theirs? 

could it be for the very same reason that some form or another of pesticide has been utilized for a very long time now?

a. so farmers can make a living
b. so the chemcial companies make a profit
c. so we can all have food to eat
d. all of the above
e. none of the above

(and there's always the possibility of a vast underground conspiricy to wipe honeybees of the face of the planet)


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> >we don't allow the harm of our infants so why do we set up our bees to HAVE to <potentially, the jury is still out> harm theirs?
> 
> could it be for the very same reason that some form or another of pesticide has been utilized for a very long time now?
> 
> a. so farmers can make a living
> b. so the chemcial companies make a profit
> c. so we can all have food to eat
> d. all of the above
> e. none of the above
> 
> (and there's always the possibility of a vast underground conspiricy to wipe honeybees of the face of the planet)


Remind me again why there are withholding periods for all crops grown that have chemical applications as part of their cultivation? 

Is it because we know they are not good for us and can cause harm to the consumer or is it just because the EPA felt like it? If we are will to impose these restriction of time between application and sale for our protection why don't the animal underpinning ~33%of the US agri sector profits also get the same respect?

Is it because suddenly we would need to address the fact that systemic insecticides don't just stay where we want them but end up permeating the entire plant and it's immediate environment? I'm not saying chemicals have no place in agriculture, I'm just asking why do we afford greater protection to ourselves, and then wonder why something is having an undesired effect on a non-target (aka "an off target" effect in the pharmaceutical world which gets drugs pulled all the time) species? 

BTW to claim that neonics have no impact on bees is just plain silly, it has a lethal dose in bees so ergo it has an effect, even if as at this time the exact effect of a sub-lethal dose is poorly known or unknown.

One final VERY OT note, when Chinese toy makers got a trace of lead, at levels WAY below the human lethal dose, into the paint used in toys imported to the USA, what did the US do? It banned all the toys and slapped punitive restrictions on those makers. The trace of lead probably got added to meet points A, B, and C of the above..... 

We seem to be quite ready to ban things when it suits us, DDT a very safe (to humans) chemical, because it was thinning the shells of raptors and other apex predator birds (all arguably of no or little economic value), but in the case of bees, which as stated, under pin ~33% of the food we eat, we aren't willing to consider it?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

DDT got banned because it is almost indestructable. Or to be correct, it is destructable, but has a heckuva long half life. Once it got into the ocean food chain and started killing birds on the other side of the planet from where it was used, we quite rightly decided we could just not keep putting more and more of it into the planet.

You are correct about the lead in Chinese toys being below lethal dose. But it was considered high enough dose to cause potential brain damage in infants if ingested, that's one of the things lead does. The US quite rightly did not want the entire future population dumbed down.

Again you are correct that neonics kill bees. If they didn't kill anything we wouldn't be using them to kill bugs, right?

Witholding periods for poisons used in crops? To get the dose we get low enough so it supposedly won't hurt us. Applies to pretty much all chemicals used on crops. We may not like that, but it's the world we live in. People still have the option to pay more and buy organic.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Oldtimer said:


> We may not like that, but it's the world we live in. People still have the option



the whole issue come down to that point


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

so you're ok with low doses of a neurotoxin like neonics (they do have an impact on mammals even if it's not as big as that in insects), but not with equally low doses of also neuroactive lead? I'm confused.


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> the whole issue come down to that point


Yes, but the bees DON'T have that option, they don't/can't know what has been poisoned and what hasn't.......


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

I think we all agree on that.


----------



## praxis178

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

yep that we can


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

yup, would be nice to beekeep without having to talk about these chemical issues, in hive and out of hive


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Oldtimer said:


> Are neonicitiniods really nicotine? Or something like it, or what?


Neonicotinoids are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine. 

That is what the wiki says. They are made from nicotine. It is something that tobacco growers are thinking may bring back tobacco. It hasn't yet and I am not so sure I think it will. Buyers simply will not pay enough to make tobacco growing pay. not even cigarette manufacturers. Figure that one out. what a farmer gets for growing tobacco is not even a penny on the dollar for what it is eventually sold for. and uncle Sam gets nearly every cent of it. If you think it is no big deal. wait until they do the same thing because you want to eat food they think you shouldn't.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

oh boy, better make that garden a bit bigger


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Ian said:


> yup, would be nice to beekeep without having to talk about these chemical issues, in hive and out of hive


that would be a perfect world! 

but since it's not, what alternatives are those who oppose the use of systemic neonics putting forth?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Is that like saying everything would be easy if it wasn't for all that difficult stuff?


----------



## squarepeg

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Daniel Y said:


> Is that like saying everything would be easy if it wasn't for all that difficult stuff?


sort of dan. it's like saying that many thousands of people lose their life in automobile accidents each year, so the obvious solution is to ban automobiles.

i am always for coming up with new technology that improves the quality of life, especially if it comes with less risk and more benefit than the current technology.

i don't make my living in agriculture or by keeping bees, but what i hear from those on the forum that do both is the neonics are an improvement over what was being used before. i hope we'll have something even better and safer some day.

and if the solution for those opposing systemics is that society should regress back to chemical free, while good in theory, it's not likely to happen.


----------



## oldforte

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

If neonics kill bees....every colony very near huge fields of treated seed....will die...is that correct? Or do the bees fly over those crops because they know of the danger?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



oldforte said:


> If neonics kill bees....every colony very near huge fields of treated seed....will die...is that correct? Or do the bees fly over those crops because they know of the danger?


That would be saying that we have the pesticide that is 100% effective. It simply does not work that way. Bees that have better forage will choose that forage. so bees that are near crops using Neonics but not effected could simply be due to other forage available. It could be that bees effected but at a slower rate so it is not so obvious. It could be that neonics really do not effect bees. I find it hard to believe an insecticide does not effect a single specific insect. Not that it can't be true. but it woudl have to be explained in detail to me. otherwise by default an insecticide kills insects. bees are insects. it is the obvious conclusion.


----------



## oldforte

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Daniel Y said:


> That would be saying that we have the pesticide that is 100% effective. It simply does not work that way. Bees that have better forage will choose that forage. so bees that are near crops using Neonics but not effected could simply be due to other forage available. It could be that bees effected but at a slower rate so it is not so obvious. It could be that neonics really do not effect bees. I find it hard to believe an insecticide does not effect a single specific insect. Not that it can't be true. but it woudl have to be explained in detail to me. otherwise by default an insecticide kills insects. bees are insects. it is the obvious conclusion.


OK, lets say that it's only 50% effective as far as bees are concerned...would 50% of the colonies die out? Yes...it's true that some insecticides only effect a certain variety of insects. Can't explain it in detail either....but is this not true.. that 50% would die?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



Daniel Y said:


> It could be that neonics really do not effect bees. I find it hard to believe an insecticide does not effect a single specific insect.


I don't think anybody is saying that neonicitinoids will not kill bees. Particularly when they have been shown to kill bees in a laboratory.

The debate is wether neonicitinoids are behind the "epidemic", of CCD. This is suspected, but not proved.

The reason being promoted, is that neonicitiniods were introduced, then we started getting CCD. So, it must be neonicitinoids causing it. Faulty logic though. If true, why do we not have CCD in my country, where neonicitinoids are widely used?

A similar type faulty argument has been promoted about varroa mites. In a well known book on top bar beekeeping, it is stated that bees were varroa mite free until after the introduction of the langstroth hive. Therefore varroa mites are caused by the langstroth hive. Another well known author claims that because varroa mites infested our bees around the globe after we invented comb foundation, varroa mites must be caused by comb foundation. Whereas to me, the obvious reason for the spread of varroa mites is because we now ship bees from one place to another.

Most people would be totally fine to accept that neonicitinoids cause CCD, if it could be proven, but thus far, it hasn't. 

A while back I asked on the commercial forum what those guys think about CCD. I figured they own lots of hives and are in a position to make a better judgement. The answer came back from some, that if they keep their varroa mites under control, CCD is a non issue.

Some years back there was a well known murder case that was widely publicised. It seemed open and shut, and the family of the victim appeared on TV voicing their contempt and hatred of the accused. But just before the end of the trial, the real murderer was identified and the case against the first accused was dropped. But the family of the victim, could not accept it. They had become so obsessed with their hatred of the first accused and their need to pin blame, that they never let it go and felt that him being released was a miscarriage of justice.
In a similar way, some people have just "decided", that neonicitinoids cause CCD.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



oldforte said:


> OK, lets say that it's only 50% effective as far as bees are concerned...would 50% of the colonies die out? Yes...it's true that some insecticides only effect a certain variety of insects. Can't explain it in detail either....but is this not true.. that 50% would die?


To be honest I am not sure. I will have to think on this a bit. I have been doing a cut out yesterday and today on top of a full days work yesterday. Not bowing out just I am tired and not all the gears are turning. I will say this. percentages are a strange beast. IN the long run they will work out. but in a given sample they will not hold true and can actually deviate wildly. the smaller the sample the wider the variation. Flipping a coin is a 50 50 chance or a 50% likelyhood. You can also call it a 1 to 1 odds. SO if you have heads and I have tails. you will pay me $1 for every time a tail is flipped and I will pay you $1 for every head. we will in the long run just simply pass the same dollar bills back and forth. But what if we only flip once? what if we flip only 10 times and 7 times it comes up heads and 3 times it comes out tails. that is a very realistic result of a 50 50 chance with only 10 repetitions.

The next time there are 10 flips it may very well be the other way around. 3 heads 7 tails. So in the short term on a 50% 50% you could actually see a huge difference. like 70 to 80 % losses one year. nearly none another. Over time. very much time you will begin to see that 50 50 emerge. Even my explanation is simplified and it actually takes thousands of repetitions for the percentage to hold true. 

This could be seen in beekeepers in that one says they see lots of losses and one says they see few or even none. And this would always be true on a case by case basis. 

Hope that makes since.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



squarepeg said:


> that would be a perfect world!
> 
> but since it's not, what alternatives are those who oppose the use of systemic neonics putting forth?


What voice do they actually have, until there is actual measurable damage done to the hives, the movement is based on feelings and philosophy. 
Of all the attention to Neonics and all the motivation to find some kind of correlation, if the evidence was there, dont you think these anit chemical lobby groups would of pounced on it ? All that I have seen are flawed biased studies. If the facts are there, bring them out!

The alternative is, what, . ? Bring back the crop duster? because that is the alternative, 

They can talk and talk and talk, its getting to the point where its all the same talk, its all skimmed over. Give us the facts


----------



## oldforte

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Neonics are basicly used on crops to prevent chewing insects from eating the grain....bees don't eat grain...they collect pollen.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



wildbranch2007 said:


> I think she is afraid to talk or else barry may do what they did in england
> 
> Stromnessbees
> Banned <-------
> About MeStatistics
> About Stromnessbees
> Biography
> studied ecolgy & entomology in Austria
> Location
> Scotland
> Interests
> organic farming
> Main Hive type used
> Smith
> Average number of colonies owned
> 15+
> Gender
> female


You obviously don't know me, I'm not easily scared.
I just got fed up with the attitude of most posters on this thread.

As for the ban on the 'Beekeeping Forum' - it was purely a matter of censorship. 
All discussion of neonics there has to be held behind closed doors now.
- I wonder why ... 

:scratch:


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

Or maybe they just got tired of your constant diatribes without facts to back them up.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



camero7 said:


> Or maybe they just got tired of your constant diatribes without facts to back them up.


There's a thread about studies on neonics, maybe you want to have a look there. 

I have read most of what's there and quite a few more, cut out the disinformation that's spread by the pesticide corporations, and made up my mind accordingly.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...D-Neonicotinoid-Data-(Studies-Articles-Links)


----------



## camero7

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*

There's no argument that neonics can kill bees. Feeding them to bees and bees die is no big revelation. I'm still waiting for studies that show real damage from real world situations. there are too many reports of bees doing well beside large acreages of corn and/or canola for me to believe that they are worse than the organophosphates that we used in the past. As Ian said, "do you want to go back to the days of crop-dusters?' Or maybe you want farmers to go broke and the world starve.


----------



## Ian

*Re: Summer bees vs winter bees?*



oldforte said:


> Neonics are basicly used on crops to prevent chewing insects from eating the grain....bees don't eat grain...they collect pollen.


except for the concern of bees collecting morning dew from the corn leaves. 
and the pollen that is dusted off from these crops during bloom


----------



## jim lyon

In the case of field corn there isn't a whole lot of pollen to be gathered and bees will work it only when there is nothing else to be found. I heard a talk on this at AHPA from a researcher who placed some hives in Nebraska in the middle of miles of irrigated corn and found a high percentage of hives that had no traces of corn pollen in the hives.. He said that it was a result of breeding. Not so with sweet corn, though, which was found to contain much more pollen.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes as a general rule, plants that are wind pollinated have a very low nutrient pollen that is not beneficial to bees, it has to be this way to make the pollen grains as light as possible. Bees can mostly detect this, although I have seen bees gathering pollen from wind pollinated pine trees, this at a time when there were few options.

To me, it is not impossible that bees could collect contaminated pollen from something that's been sprayed with a systemic insecticide, including neonics. There is scant evidence though, but it's something I feel we should be aware of it could be from beekeepers own observations that breakthroughs are made.

Jim, were that researchers hives in a situation where they suffered pollen shortage but still did not collect the corn pollen? If so, that would help eliminate corn pollen as a danger although of course it's just one experiment.


----------



## jim lyon

OT: What I remember was that they brought very strong hives into an area saturated with corn to study whether the pollen that was gathered had any traces of neonics and if so at what concentrations they were found. They were, however, surprised at how difficult it was to find any corn pollen whatsoever in the hives and that the amounts they did detect were pretty insignificant. The researchers made the casual observation that walking through the corn was a whole different experience than it was 20 years ago when the pollen was thick in the air when disturbed. It seems a bit odd to me that lower pollen content would be consistent with higher corn yields.


----------



## Oldtimer

Did they test the wax for contamination?


----------



## jim lyon

I think just the pollen.


----------



## Acebird

Oldtimer said:


> Bees can mostly detect this, although I have seen bees gathering pollen from wind pollinated pine trees, this at a time when there were few options.


Both my wife and I have witnessed bees covering our scrub pines at a certain time in the summer. Usually late in the evening and usually when there has been plenty to forage on during the day. We guessed that they were after the sap for propolise but we really don't know.


----------



## camero7

Here's very concerning study of pollen/neonics. Hope everyone reads it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/

Partial conclusions:
Detection of agricultural pesticides (and neonicotinoids in particular) in hives (including honey, pollen and wax) has been documented in the past: Bee-collected pollen was found to contain the neonicotinoid imidacloprid [17] in one study, although no adverse effects upon adults or brood were found [18]. However, a more recent study found that rearing brood in comb contaminated with pesticides (including the neonicotinoids found in our study, thiamethoxam and clothianidin) led to delayed worker development [6]. A field study examining the effects upon honey bees of clothianidin-treated canola found low levels of clothianidin in both pollen and nectar (0.93ppb and 2.59 ppb, respectively), but also found no significant effects upon honey bee populations [16]. In studies in maize, guttation droplets produced by plants grown from neonicotinoid treated seed were shown to have from 10–100 mg/L of the pesticides and were found to cause paralysis and eventual death when fed to honey bees [19], while other studies have found traces of the seed treatment imidacloprid on vegetation near maize plantings and have hypothesized that sowing treated seed can cause dispersal of dust containing insecticide [20]. Further evidence of detrimental effects of planting treated maize seed was noted by researchers in Italy, who found that honey bee mortality increased on the day seeds were planted and that numbers of foragers declined in the days following planting [21]. A subsequent study demonstrated that bees that were induced to fly near a maize planter in Europe showed up to 100 ng of clothianidin/bee upon analysis. Interestingly, however, these bees did not die unless they were kept in conditions of high humidity [22].

Detection of clothianidin in pollen, both in stored pollen in cells and in pollen traps is a critical finding because clothianidin is even more toxic when administered to bees orally, with an LD50 of 2.8–3.7 ng/bee [23], [24]. Given an average weight of 80–100 mg/bee, some of our pollen sample concentrations exceed the oral LD50. This, combined with the result that our samples of dead and dying honey bees consistently demonstrated the presence of clothianidin, suggests that the levels of both clothianidin and thiamethoxam found in our sampling of stored pollen in May of 2011 may have contributed to the deaths of the bees we analyzed. However, our analytical methods do not allow us to determine what fraction of the pesticide is on the surface of bees (contact toxicity, due to drift of soil or planter exhaust) vs. inside the body (oral toxicity, due to ingestion of contaminated pollen or guttation droplets). A combination of these exposure modalities is not unlikely.

Our results also demonstrate that clothianidin is present in the surface soil of agricultural fields long after treated seed has been planted in that field. All soil samples we collected contained clothianidin, even in cases where no treated seed had been planted for 2 growing seasons. During the spring planting period, dust that arises from this soil may land on flowers frequented by bees, or possibly on the insects themselves. Of potentially greater concern are the very high levels of neonicotinoids (and fungicides) found in the talc that has been exposed to treated seed, since part of this highly mobile material is exhausted to the outside environment during planting and after planting. The large areas being planted with neonicotinoid treated seeds, combined with the high persistence of these materials and the mobility of disturbed soil and talc dust, carry potential for effects over an area that may exceed the boundaries of the production fields themselves. A key mechanism for honey bee exposure may occur during the period when maize is typically planted across much of the Midwest (mid-April through early May). At this time, the energetic requirements of honey bee colonies are increasing rapidly and pollen and nectar resources are being gathered for colony growth. Talc and soil dusts from planting are mobile and have the potential to contaminate any flowering plants that are commonly found in or near agricultural fields and are visited by honey bees, including dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), which has been shown to be a preferred pollen and nectar source for honey bees during this period, when floral resources are relatively limited [25].

Later in the season, when planting is largely complete, we found that honey bees will collect maize pollen that contains translocated neonicotinoids and other pesticides from seed. Translocation of neonicotinoids into pollen has previously been reported for maize grown from imidacloprid-treated seed [26], although the degree to which honey bees in our study gathered maize pollen was surprising. The finding that bee-collected pollen contained neonicotinoids is of particular concern because of the risks to newly-emerged nurse bees, which must feed upon pollen reserves in the hive immediately following emergence. Pollen is the primary source of protein for honey bees, and is fed to larvae by nurse bees in the form of royal jelly. A bee will consume 65 mg of pollen during the 10 day period it spends as a nurse bee [27], therefore a concentration of 20 ng/g (ppb) in pollen would correspond to a dose of 1.3 ng (65 mg×20 ng/g) or almost 50% of the oral LD50 of ca. 2.8 ng/bee [23]. Some of our pollen concentrations were even higher, although it is important to note that LD50 is measured as a one-time dose, while exposure through contaminated pollen would be spread out over the 10 d period and that there is likely substantial metabolic decay of the compounds during this time. Lethal levels of insecticides in pollen are an obvious concern, but sublethal levels are also worthy of study as even slight behavioral effects may impact how affected bees carry out important tasks such as brood rearing, orientation and communication.

Also potentially important are the three fungicides found in bee-collected pollen samples (trifloxystrobin and azoxystrobin and propiconazole). Azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin are frequently used in maize seed treatments as protectants and all three of these compounds are also widely applied to maize in North America, even in the absence of disease symptoms [28]. These compounds are typically applied using aerial application during anthesis. Propiconazole has been shown to synergize toxicity of some neonicotinoids (thiacloprid and acetamiprid) to honey bees in the laboratory, although the same results have not been shown in field studies [10], [29]. Although these fungicides are not acutely toxic to honey bees [5], the fact that they are routinely applied to areas that bees will frequent (i.e. maize plants at anthesis) coupled with the difficulties and uncertainties in assessing the toxicity of pesticide mixtures [30], indicate that they should be considered in future work.

In evaluating our results, it is important to bear in mind that toxicity is only one variable in addressing pesticide risks to pollinators – the intersection between toxicity and exposure is key in determining how much risk is posed by a toxicant to a given organism. These components are assessed by regulators in developing a “risk cup” which combines these parameters to assess the cumulative risks of a given toxicant to an organism [31]. In the case of honey bees, the toxicity of the neonicotinoid seed treatments used for large acreage field crops has been well-established [14], [31], although when assessing the overall threat to posed to honey bee populations, calculations are complicated even further by the observation that sublethal doses of insecticides can weaken bees and increase susceptibility to key parasites or pathogens [32].

Because we found these compounds in pollen, oral LD50 is a relevant parameter in discussing toxicity to honey bees. In terms of acute toxicity (based on the oral LD50 of 2.8 ng/bee [23]), the amount of clothianidin on a single maize seed at the rate of 0.5 mg/kernel contains enough active ingredient to kill over 80,000 honey bees. However, the overall level of risk has been more difficult to quantify, as there has not been a clear mechanism whereby honey bees could be exposed to high levels of these compounds – once the treated seed is planted, opportunities for honey bee exposure to concentrations of neonicotinoids over a wide area should drop dramatically (although see [19]). Our results suggest that of the factors we quantified in this study, used talc exhausted during and after planting (the latter would occur during routine cleaning of planting equipment) stands out as potential routes for exposure that should be prioritized for further quantification and remediation. A recently published review of the risks posed by planting treated seeds in the E.U. estimates that measures taken there may reduce the dust generated during planting by 99% [33]. In North America, different planting equipment is used and there are currently no guidelines for disposal of waste talc, nor are there devices for filtering exhaust material from the vacuum planting systems. Producers may be largely unaware that this material is highly toxic to pollinators. However, given the unprecedented levels of maize production across the United States, coupled with the increasing adoption of neonicotinoid seed treatments in other annual crops covering a wide area, including soybeans (31.3 million ha), wheat (24.7 million ha), and cotton (4.4 million ha, all figures 2010 planting) [9], it is clear that this material presents a risk that is worthy of further investigation and possibly corrective action.

Our findings have implications both for honey bees located near these crops year-round, but also for migratory colonies (bees used to pollinate winter-flowering specialty crops in western North America, such as almonds and other fruit and nut crops). Many of these colonies reside in areas where treated seed is used extensively (i.e. the upper Midwestern United States) during the period from early spring through late fall. During this period, these bees forage on a variety of crops that may be planted using neonicotinoid treated seed, including maize, soybeans and canola. Although our study was confined to honey bees, these results are relevant for any pollinators that forage in or near agricultural fields, both in the crop itself or on other flowering plants (i.e. weeds) that are present in or near the field.


----------



## hpm08161947

jim lyon said:


> The researchers made the casual observation that walking through the corn was a whole different experience than it was 20 years ago when the pollen was thick in the air when disturbed. It seems a bit odd to me that lower pollen content would be consistent with higher corn yields.


I wonder if modern day field corn consists of monoploid corn kernels? Of course one does see sprouted corn in an early harvested field, unless this monoploid corn will germinate. Which it may well do. I wonder if corn genetics is as complicated as bee genetics?


----------



## squarepeg

cam, here's what randy oliver had to say about the krupke study:

"Planting dust: Krupke (2012) contained little new information–planting dust can cause bee mortality; the test colonies recovered (Greg Hunt, pers comm). Points out potential synergies with fungicides—there are also other pesticides in the dust. There is a large body of research already published on this issue—see Krupke’s or Marzaro’s (2011) references sections."

interesting that those colonies recovered. hopefully the dust issue is being addressed by the agricultural community.


----------



## Stromnessbees

squarepeg said:


> cam, here's what randy oliver had to say about the krupke study:
> 
> "Planting dust: Krupke (2012) contained little new information–planting dust can cause bee mortality; the test colonies recovered (Greg Hunt, pers comm). Points out potential synergies with fungicides—there are also other pesticides in the dust. There is a large body of research already published on this issue—see Krupke’s or Marzaro’s (2011) references sections."



I hope that you are aware that Randy Oliver has received funding from Bayer.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well I've read Randy for a while. I have 100% confidence in the mans integrity.

I think these vague character assassinations suck.


----------



## Barry

Strom -

Am I going to have to limit you in your posting in the top thread? I don't want it filled with stuff like this:

---------------
*Neonicotinoids – is it time for them to buzz off?*

by Veronica Peerless, Gardening Deputy Editor
Energy & Home
14 February 2013


It’s been a tough few years for bees, with numbers dropping in the UK and internationally. Could agricultural insecticides be to blame? Do you use insecticides to keep your garden pest-free?


The comments below this article are particularly interesting!
-----------------

We could fill 100 pages with stuff like this. I want to limit info in the top thread to real studies and articles written by people who are in the field actually doing the work, not some garden editor. So either limit it yourself or I'll do it.


----------



## camero7

And I suppose you receive advice from God. You're tune is getting old. Randy Oliver is the best source of information that normal beekeepers have. He makes most of his living off bees and also shares his extensive knowledge of science with us. You've finally made my ignore list.


----------



## Barry

Stromnessbees said:


> I hope that you are aware that Randy Oliver has received funding from Bayer.


Yes, old news, been discussed.


----------



## Daniel Y

So if Bayer where to actually do genuine studies. Just who should they go to? It is not really much of an argument to say that anyone that would research for Bayer is then somehow discounted.

So you call Randy Oliver into question. And you don't even have the courage to do it clearly and distinctly. I challenge on that and now invite you to support that claim in detail tell us exactly what Randy has ever said that indicates his work is wrong suspect or unreliable. I say it is obvious that all apply liberally to your claim.


----------



## squarepeg

>I hope that you are aware that Randy Oliver has received funding from Bayer

oh, was that was in one of those ignored posts? how funny.

i am proud to say that randy has received funding from me too, and many other interested and concerned beekeepers as well.


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> So you call Randy Oliver into question. And you don't even have the courage to do it clearly and distinctly. I challenge on that and now invite you to support that claim in detail tell us exactly what Randy has ever said that indicates his work is wrong suspect or unreliable. I say it is obvious that all apply liberally to your claim.


your going to be waiting a long time for that answer


----------



## praxis178

> Randy Oliver is the best source of information that normal beekeepers have.


That may be, but anyone who relies totally on reviewed and parsed information in preference to primary sources is in for a rude shock. There is a reason published authors are discouraged from relying on secondary (review work just like Randy's) sources. Namely that you have no idea of the veracity and just what "filtering" the author put the primary materials through to arrive at their interpretation. 

Long story short do the reading, if you don't understand something ask, there are LOTS of very knowledgeable people here. It really is that simple, relying on another's interpretation of another's work (add as many steps to this chain as you like) is not a good idea.


----------



## cerezha

Stromnessbees said:


> I hope that you are aware that Randy Oliver has received funding from Bayer.


 I was not aware of it. How funny - it was recommended in this thread to me to read Randy Oliver stuff, so I did. It is common scientific ethic to disclose the source of financial support in every scientific report. I did not notice if Randy did it... did I miss something?


----------



## Oldtimer

cerezha said:


> did I miss something?


No. Randy gets his income from many sources. Too much innuendo here.


----------



## Stromnessbees

cerezha said:


> I was not aware of it. How funny - it was recommended in this thread to me to read Randy Oliver stuff, so I did. It is common scientific ethic to disclose the source of financial support in every scientific report. I did not notice if Randy did it... did I miss something?


Hi cerezha

Let me give you an example of how Randy Oliver works, right from the front page of his website:

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/

I hope you have already read the 'Harvard Study' which he discusses there, if not you will find it here:

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-099-106lu.pdf

Randy does give you the link on his page, but only half way down the page, after he has already thrown a lot of dirt at it, so most beekeepers wont' bother to read it for themselves. 


Now this study has got a very interesting outcome: 
*It replicates the main symptoms of CCD!*

As a scientist, whenever you can replicate a complex set of symptoms with an artificial setup, you know that you are onto something. 
Nobody else had achieved this for CCD at the time. 

OK, the study setup was not perfect, there are a few details that could be improved in a follow up study, but the cat is out of the bag, we have got a good start to studying CCD, and it's highly likely that the neonics have got a lot to do with it. 

But Randy Oliver ignores this achievement and concentrates only on rubbishing the study and its author.
He never calls for a follow-up study with an improved setup, and that's what makes me wonder about his integrity. 

In his 'analysis' he completely ignores the fact, that 15 out of the 16 treated colonies died with symptoms similar to CCD
Instead, he concentrates a great deal on the dosing regime and just declares: _'it is amazing to me that the colonies were not killed outright!'_

Well, it is amazing, I agree, but the conclusions we should draw from this statement are very different from the ones he draws: 

Isn't this exactly what we see happening all over the place: bees not directly affected by foraging on neonic treated crops, but their colonies collapsing months after the exposure?


The increase in the dosing regime can actually be explained very easily: 

Chensheng Lu obviously wanted to avoid killing his bees outright, and as it is difficult to know how much other forage they might take in, thereby diluting the dosing from the feeders, he started the treated colonies on very small amounts of Imidacloprid. 

After noticing no effects, he increased the dosing rates to the next level, and was still able to avoid direct damage to the colonies. 
If you look carefully, you see that he works with 8 different concentrations, ranging from 0.1 to 400 μg/kg in the weekly feed (2.6 kg of HFCS).



By reading the study for what it is, and suggesting certain improvements to help further clarify the issue, Randy Oliver could have done beekeepers all over the world a great favor.

But by rubbishing it throughout, he more or less created a precedent, discouraging other researchers from even looking at the issue, and leaving beekeepers confused and misinformed.


----------



## praxis178

Oldtimer said:


> No. Randy gets his income from many sources. Too much innuendo here.


Maybe, but really unless these sources are obviously and CLEARLY declared, then his position of trust in the beek community in regards to these topics can easily be read as a serious conflict of interest. Which is a serious worry if he is being held up as the "gold standard" for us to get our info from.


----------



## wildbranch2007

praxis178 said:


> Maybe, but really unless these sources are obviously and CLEARLY declared, then his position of trust in the beek community in regards to these topics can easily be read as a serious conflict of interest. Which is a serious worry if he is being held up as the "gold standard" for us to get our info from.


well we would be most interested to here yourfunding sources so we can evaluate your contributions.


----------



## jonathan

Randy Oliver has clarified the Bayer thing many times and has often said he will be the first on their case if he finds evidence to condemn any of their products.
If you read what he writes he has highlighted several areas of concern with regard to Bayer products - dust clouds at seed drilling is the most obvious one which springs to mind.
Jerry Bromenshenk got the same smears when he suggested bee problems which were not directly related to neonicotinoid pesticides.
In fact, anyone who suggests that bee problems are not a single issue directly related to neonicotinoid pesticides gets this smear treatment to a greater or lesser extent, even the humble posters on sites such as this.
One guy on the UK beekeeping forum claimed recently that all the garden forums have been 'infiltrated' with 'Industry' shills.
Randy Oliver and Jerry B mostly post on Bee-L where this stuff has come up several times.
Randy on several occasions has volunteered donated many hundreds of his own colonies to various experimental studies at his own cost. He often loses the lot. This is for the general good of beekeeping and I for one am glad there are altruistic individuals like Randy Oliver willing to help.


----------



## praxis178

Happy to, I get 100% from the Australian government as student support. Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.


----------



## Oldtimer

praxis178 said:


> Maybe, but really unless these sources are obviously and CLEARLY declared, then his position of trust in the beek community in regards to these topics can easily be read as a serious conflict of interest. Which is a serious worry if he is being held up as the "gold standard" for us to get our info from.


Why do people make innuendo when they don't know, as in this case?

It's also bad taste to imply the man holds himself up as the "gold standard". That accusation could be levelled at anyone who does and publishes research, and is an unfair, meaningless accusation.


----------



## camero7

Oldtimer said:


> Why do people make innuendo when they don't know, as in this case?


Because they are more interested in causing problems than solving the problem.:scratch:


----------



## wildbranch2007

praxis178 said:


> Happy to, I get 100% from the Australian government as student support. Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.


sorry I'll take a beekeeper primarily funded with beekeeper money over a government worker any day.


----------



## cerezha

wildbranch2007 said:


> ... beekeeper money ...


 You mean Bayer money? My understanding was that we were talking about Randy's Oliver support by Bayer Corporation. So, you feel that Bayer money is better than Australian government money? I missed something AGAIN...


----------



## jonathan

The funding is beside the point. It is the integrity of the researcher which matters.
If anyone slurring Randy Oliver has some evidence that he has manipulated results in some way due to an association with Bayer then put it on the table.
Otherwise, just leave out the innuendo.
Innuendo and conspiracy theory is the sure sign of someone with no real argument.


----------



## hpm08161947

cerezha said:


> You mean Bayer money? My understanding was that we were talking about Randy's Oliver support by Bayer Corporation. So, you feel that Bayer money is better than Australian government money? I missed something AGAIN...


He is saying that most of RO's suppot comes from average ;beekeepers...... not GOV or Bayer....


----------



## Oldtimer

Probably not even worth defending Randy, this last page or so of posts on the matter was started by a fact, Bayer paid him for some work, and an insinuation, being that's made him twist his work. Seems like those who want to jump on board will not be persuaded otherwise. Evidence is not required.

I've seen "research" that's set up within certain parameters to try to prove the desired result. Don't see it in Randy's work.

Research designed to give a certain result is usually fairly easy to expose if the studies are looked at properly. 

So you guys go. As stated if someone has evidence of wrongdoing put it on the table. If you cannot find any, it's a fair assumption there isn't any.


----------



## beemandan

I’m firmly convinced that those who presume that others are easily corrupted are actually painting a portrait of themselves. They believe that everyone else shares their ethics.
I believe I need to find the ignore feature here.


----------



## Acebird

praxis178 said:


> Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.


I find it hard to believe industry is not supporting your government and most likely controlling it in some way.
I don't blame neonic's as the sole cause of bee survival. I blame monoculture that creates the demand for neonic's which is only one item that is hurting the planet.


----------



## Oldtimer

Acebird said:


> I don't blame neonic's as the sole cause of bee survival. I blame monoculture that creates the demand for neonic's which is only one item that is hurting the planet.


It's a rare thing Ace, but on this point I agree with you I've felt that for a long time.


----------



## cg3

Now the trick is to convince farmers they need to make less money.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

praxis178 said:


> Happy to, I get 100% from the Australian government as student support. Yep no industry funding one way or another, AT ALL.


Your analysis of the source of your financial support is *fatally flawed*. Where do you think the government gets the money they fund you with? :scratch: Taxes?? You bet! 



> Divided into three business groups, Bayer HealthCare, Bayer CropScience and Bayer MaterialScience, Bayer employs around 1000 people in Australia and New Zealand, and 111,800 people worldwide. In 2012 Bayer generated A$891 million (NZ$1144 million) in revenue in Australia and New Zealand.
> 
> http://www.bayer.com.au/scripts/pages/en/about_bayer/bayer_australia_and_new_zealand/index.php


Bayer employs 1000 people in Australia and NZ combined, with likely the bulk in Australia. Combined sales are A$891. Obviously Bayer pays taxes to the Australian government. 

So now we have established a financial link between Bayer and _Praxis178_.  Funny how that works!

:ws:


----------



## jonathan

Oldtimer said:


> It's a rare thing Ace, but on this point I agree with you I've felt that for a long time.


I also agree totally with that point. Bees need a wide and varied pollen source to get all the amino acids they need.
Different pollens have different combinations of amino acids.
Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition.
The roundup ready form of agriculture is maybe what needs examination rather than the neonicotinoids.
There have been proposals in Europe about obliging farmers to intercrop forage strips of bee friendly plants at the margins to mitigate the negative effect of monoculture on bees and other pollinators.
A lot of the problems associated with modern agriculture actually have workable solutions which achieve a compromise between the needs of the food producers and the needs of the pollinators -other than calling for a ban and ignoring the consequences.


----------



## Acebird

cg3 said:


> Now the trick is to convince farmers they need to make less money.


Who are these farmers? When I was a kid they worked hard and did fairly well. Today they are gone, can't make ends meet or they turned their real estate into developments and walked away with a bundle. I think an independent framer has a much better chance of making it now and in the future because more people see the benefits of organic sustainability. If you are a corporation running your farm as a factory it doesn't give me the picture of a farmer. I know, I am old.


----------



## jim lyon

Brian: I am living in the heart of the farm belt. What is happening mirrors what has happened in our economy at large. Bigger farms and fewer farmers. The most efficient that make best use of "modern" farming practices that maximize yields are the ones with the capital to purchase more farm land and on and on it goes. Unfortunately the old farming practices are just becoming a distant memory. Many farmers used to eke out a living on a quarter section of land, now that ground may bring a million and a half dollars. When the old farmer is gone its not surprising what the majority of the heirs choose to do with the land.


----------



## hpm08161947

Farms will only get larger. In 1965, when I first began to date the "farmer's daughter", there were close to 100 farm families, today there are 3. Of course, there are also numerous 'Vertical Farming" arrangements, but it's hard to call these farms... IMHO. For example... my wife's nephew raises 500000 chickens at a time in numerous industrial quality buidings.. the main job seems to be picking up dead chickens and monitoring environmental quality guages.... much more like industry work than old time farming. Hogs, chickens, turkeys, are all done this way... vertical farming. I don't have a solution, people who suggest many small organic farms are the solution really do not know the problem.


----------



## Ian

> So you call Randy Oliver into question. And you don't even have the courage to do it clearly and distinctly. I challenge on that and now invite you to support that claim in detail tell us exactly what Randy has ever said that indicates his work is wrong suspect or unreliable. I say it is obvious that all apply liberally to your claim.


still waiting . . . . .


----------



## camero7

Don't hold your breath Ian!


----------



## cg3

Because of the way the land lays here there are few flat fields bigger than 10 acres or so. So there is not much appeal to big ag to buy up land. We still have quite a few family farms. But the only common crop that will make a reliable profit is corn. And these guys love their "Monster (Monsanto) corn".


----------



## Kieck

> Bees need a wide and varied pollen source to get all the amino acids they need.
> Different pollens have different combinations of amino acids.
> Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition.
> The roundup ready form of agriculture is maybe what needs examination rather than the neonicotinoids. -jonathan


Those comments are worth repeating. That one line, "Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition," is a variant on what I keep repeating in my head when I'm scouting new yard locations.

More than that, even if you find two or three crops, it's close enough to a monoculture to have the same sort of influence on bees.

I don't know if anyone else has caught it, but studies have been posted here in this thread, too, that state clearly that neonicotinoids are detectable in pollen in trace amounts if the neonicotinoids are present. Hardly the "doing damage but cannot be physically detected" phenomenon that has been asserted in some claims.


----------



## cerezha

hpm08161947 said:


> He is saying that most of RO's suppot comes from average ;beekeepers...... not GOV or Bayer....


 It is great to have such support, but I do not understand why, he is so shy to disclose the contributors? I think, it is just nice to thank people for their support. If Bayer is is the list - it needs to be acknowledged as well. At the very end of his WEB-site he has a few names, but, they are not "average beekeepers" and there is no Bayer.


----------



## camero7

I'm one of those small contributors. And I'm a small sideliner.


----------



## cerezha

camero7 said:


> I'm one of those small contributors. And I'm a small sideliner.


 Did your name acknowledged properly? It is sad if not. My wife is working for non-profit organization to help kids with low income to get into the college. Even if you contribute $5, they sent a thank you letter. I believe that bigger than $100 are listed.


----------



## Oldtimer

Any evidence of wrongdoing yet?


----------



## Ian

cg3 said:


> And these guys love their "Monster (Monsanto) corn".


so do we, just the Canadian version lol


----------



## cerezha

Oldtimer said:


> Any evidence of wrongdoing yet?


 wrongdoing IS do not disclose financial sources and potential conflict of interest in research paper. It is simply requirement to disclose. If you are talking about Randy Oliver - he is publishing in non-scientific journals and thus, non-disclosure of his financial resources is exclusively on him. In my research papers,yes, I do disclose all potential conflict of interests. It is just normal practice. Did I answer your question?


----------



## squarepeg

but sergey, randy oliver's papers are not 'research papers'. these are articles for beekeepers. i find them invaluable because he is able to review and critique the research and present it to me in a form that i can digest and use in a practical way. it is clear to me that randy does not have any agenda other than getting to the truth, and that he is not beholding to any of his many contributors. he makes his living as a beekeeper, but he is uniquely educated and qualified to be a reliable source of information for you and i when it comes to making sense out of the science.


----------



## Oldtimer

cerezha said:


> Did I answer your question?


Good answer, but not really the question I was thinking of, I was thinking of anything wrong with his studies. As you appear to be a researcher / author of papers yourself, you would surely have the understanding to look at his studies and see if they are done correctly?

As previously stated, it is no secret Bayer paid him for some work, been discussed all over the place. No issues there far as I'm concerned. The original post on this was an attempt to insinuate there is something wrong with his actual studies. Is there? Cos I prefer facts to insinuations when it comes to talking about a named persons integrity.

There's also a few things starting to worry me about the anti neonics people and methods. I used to think they were good honest folks, sincere in their beliefs. But I've been seeing knowingly wrong advise being dispensed and a refusal to explain it, character assassination of anyone not towing the line, and borderline lies. IE, dirty tactics, and I don't like it.

Sad, cos me anyway, I'm still very open to being shown that neonics are a major problem and will not let the behaviour of a few stop me having an open mind. But, I need evidence. As a researcher Cerezha you would be the perfect person to find it. Assuming it exists. Keen to see the flaws in Randy's study.


----------



## cerezha

Oldtimer said:


> Good answer, but not really the question I was thinking of, I was thinking of anything wrong with his studies....


 Well
I already posted my review on Randy's review... it is somewhere buried in the previous posts. It was not welcomed at this forum.

It is all about interpretation and idea that all science evidence needs to be supported by "real" field observations. In another words, for Randy and EPA the observation (not fact) that bees are doing well in "corn belt" is enough to disregard research made by respected scientists and published in peer-reviewed journal... To me, such approach is not acceptable. "Real field" is tricky - it is not controllable and thus, it is practically impossible to do good science in non-controllable conditions. It *is* possible but a huge statistics is needed. As far as I know, the only one "anti" campaign which uses a "real field" test successfully - it is anti-tobacco campaign, the correlation between smoking and human death. That "field test" was cost of hundreds of thousand lives before acceptance of the simple idea that tobacco is bad. It was known for decades that nicotine is bad, but to prove it in the "real field" - it took decades and hundreds of thousands lives to prove the obvious thing. I remember how people used this argument: "I am smoking for 20 years and I am in perfect health - thus, smoke is harmful!" - "the real field" argument.

The toxicity of neonics will be "re-discovered" after many-many deaths and I wish to see what Randy will write than? Oops, apparently, there was a scientific evidence that neonics are irreversibly bind to the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors, it was known for decades.... but bees were doing well, Ooops

Did I satisfy your curiosity? Take care.


----------



## beemandan

Oldtimer said:


> I prefer facts to insinuations when it comes to talking about a named persons integrity.


The moment folks will accuse another of professional dishonesty...without a stitch of evidence...they no longer have anything to say that I care to hear.


----------



## Acebird

hpm08161947 said:


> I don't have a solution, people who suggest many small organic farms are the solution really do not know the problem.


The problem is we have an addiction for things that are cheap and lose site of the end game. It is nice to be able to buy things that are cheap until you no longer have a job because we didn't think ahead. 5000000 chickens is a factory that produces cheap chickens and cheap eggs, both suck as a food product but at the market they look good. If you are going to solve problems in the future you can't have a mind set that only looks at today.

I don't know if the powerful corporation can be turned around. They are certainly not going to give up their power no more than a worthless congressman would. The only thing the little guy has going for him is the "demand" factor in a free economy. Large corporations offer organic foods now when they insisted there was no difference. Seems like there is, even if in their eyes it is only economics.

Jim, what is happening is not sustainable. So when the crash comes be prepared for the bail out on the backs of the middle class ... another depression. Probably it will top the great depression. The difference is the wealthy will not be jumping off the empire state building or any sizable bridge like happened in 39. It will be more like the bank and wall street bail out where the middle class will get screwed. We have a socialistic not a "free" market economy.
"Too big to fail" how dumb can we be?

All empires fall because they can not see the future. The United States of America is surely in a decline. Is it so hard to predict the future?


----------



## Oldtimer

Re post #189

Well some fair points, I'm going to accept that Cerezha. I did read the previous post you mentioned, but didn't really consider it that valuable because it focussed on critique of basing a paper on research done by others, but Randy is entitled to do that he is collating info into a format to be read by beekeepers, but mainly, he does not just do that, he also does his own work.

Still don't think the study was deliberately skewed or anything, however again, I accept the points you raise, but it's not enough to question the mans integrity.


----------



## jim lyon

Acebird said:


> Jim, what is happening is not sustainable. So when the crash comes be prepared for the bail out on the backs of the middle class ... another depression. Probably it will top the great depression. The difference is the wealthy will not be jumping off the empire state building or any sizable bridge like happened in 39. It will be more like the bank and wall street bail out where the middle class will get screwed. We have a socialistic not a "free" market economy.
> "Too big to fail" how dumb can we be?
> 
> All empires fall because they can not see the future. The United States of America is surely in a decline. Is it so hard to predict the future?


Actually I agree in large part with what you are saying (did I just say that?). I am not going to get long winded because we are wandering a bit off topic but let it suffice to say that I differ largely because I dont believe that the profit motive is inherently bad or even unique to big business. Every time I use a new invention that makes my life a little easier or my business a little more profitable I think to myself "whoever invented this deserves to be rich"


----------



## cerezha

Oldtimer said:


> ...Still don't think the study was deliberately skewed or anything, however again, I accept the points you raise, but it's not enough to question the mans integrity.


 I do not think that study was purposely biased. As I explained in my old post-review, my explanation is that Randy was trying to balance too much between hard science and .... beekeepers (who provide financial support). It is very difficult to keep a balance in such situation... "Realistic field test" is not Randy's "invention", it is actually EPA! But Randy support it. It may be interested to know for this audience that according EPA, there is no connection yet between the alcohol and human health - just not enough statistics, the facts (deaths). Similarly, it took hundreds of thousands deaths to prove that asbest is dangerous... lead, you name it...

* "but it's not enough to question the mans integrity" * - I am not questioning anybody integrity. But, you need to understand that I DO have my own integrity also - my "integrity" "forced" me to be humiliated on this forum by advocating for truth and science... so weird...

Thank you so much everyone, who supported my efforts.


----------



## Ian

Acebird said:


> I don't know if the powerful corporation can be turned around.


oh yes they can, its the consumer that drives the market

just look at organic food production, corporation interests very active producing that crop


----------



## hpm08161947

The Locavore and Organic movements have much potential, but I doubt they have the ability to feed the world as we seem required to do. The Locavore and Organic consumers are largely the "High End", the masses are still eating my nephews chickens...


----------



## johnthefarmer

Acebird said:


> Who are these farmers? ...


I'm a farmer, an organic one even.

Just catching up on this thread. I have seen similar discussions on another forum, this topic is a minefield. 
Question is, who sets the mines?


----------



## johnthefarmer

As an independent organic farmer and beekeeper I am very suspicious of industry funded agencies. 
- on that note I found this post quite thought provoking:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?278572-Neonic-facts&p=903471#post903471


----------



## hpm08161947

johnthefarmer said:


> As an independent organic farmer and beekeeper I am very suspicious of industry funded agencies.
> - on that note I found this post quite thought provoking:


Hi "JohntheFarmer" - what do you organically farm on the Orkneys? Sheep? Maybe those tough little Cheviots. What do you find thought provoking about your "CrossPost"?

Do you know Stromness bees? You must as the Orkneys are not a large place.


----------



## Barry

johnthefarmer said:


> I have seen similar discussions on another forum, this topic is a minefield.
> Question is, who sets the mines?


Hi John -

That really isn't the question. The question is are neonics the main cause of massive bee die-offs. So if you have something to add in this discussion, please do. Cheerleading and casting aspersions gets old quickly.


----------



## Kieck

> The toxicity of neonics will be "re-discovered" after many-many deaths... -cerezha


I don't doubt or question the toxicity of neonicotinoids in bees or other insects.

I do question how long neonicotinoids persist in the soil and in plants. Aphids feeding on crops that have been planted with seed treatments or soil treatments of neonicotinoids show no effects to their populations four to six weeks after planting. This class of insecticides is intended to target piercing-sucking insects (such as aphids) more than other insects, and the systemic action of the pesticides should target them nicely. I've done the counts of aphids on the two groups -- treated and not -- and can confirm that no difference exists in the populations and population growths on both soybeans and corn treated with neonicotinoids at planting. I've counted aphids on both from early July through September here.

I question how much field exposure bees actually face in most years from neonicotinoids. Bees here do not seem to collect much pollen in corn, and I've rarely encountered large numbers of bees in corn fields in the last several years (despite spending thousands of hours in corn fields sampling insect populations of various species). I've never observed bees around here collecting guttation fluids from corn; that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but I doubt it's common here.

And I question whether even a strong correlation between neonicotinoid exposure and CCD exists. That seems to be the central thesis in this thread, yet I'm not convinced that such a correlation exists. Even that Harvard study that was linked in Randy Oliver's review demonstrated that the bees in the treated hives died in January and February. Now, I have not seen CCD in person, but I thought the losses occurred in the fall (a.k.a, "fall dwindling?") rather than in the winter? And I thought a suite of other symptoms also characterized CCD?


----------



## jim lyon

John: if you take nothing else away from your experience on this forum I would hope it is that there are some pretty bright well spoken folks on here capable of analyzing and arriving at informed conclusions that may be different than yours. People that come on here only to make what, in effect, are nothing more than social statements are really missing out on some great bee discussions by some really talented beekeepers. Please join us, you just might like it, most of us would like to hear about beekeeping in Scotland and I would think you would enjoy hearing about the experiences of beekeepers in other parts of the world as well.


----------



## Ian

Is it just me or does it seem we talk about heavy losses after every extreme dry summer,.?


----------



## Ian

making me nervous listening to all this loss talk.

going to go check my shed today


----------



## Kieck

I've taken bigger losses this winter than I ever have, but I knew it was coming. Fall flowers ended blooming here by the second week of September, and freeze-up didn't really set in until the middle of November. My bees shut down brood rearing really in late August, and never produced the late brood that I expect to get them through the winter. I tried feeding them to get them to raise another round of brood in October, but couldn't get them to do it.

I blame it on the unusually early progression of the various blooms during the season last year, and severely dry conditions from late July through December.


----------



## Ian

that seems to be a common theme among the majority of beekeepers I have talked to up here. 
our bees stopped flying middle of October, and have been locked up in the dark ever since November. Not even the outdoor hives have had warm enough days to make cleansing flights. Starting to worry up here,


----------



## oldforte

Kieck said:


> I don't doubt or question the toxicity of neonicotinoids in bees or other insects.
> 
> I do question how long neonicotinoids persist in the soil and in plants. . . . .


This has definetly been the best answer to my original question. Experience beats all the other rhetoric. Thank you.


----------



## rniles

From the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/

*Soil collected from areas near our test site revealed that neonicotinoid insecticide residues were present in all samples tested* (Table 1), with clothianidin occurring in each field sampled. Herbicide residues were also found in these samples. Sampling of the* waste talc from planting activities revealed that extremely high concentrations* of clothianidin were found in talc exposed to treated seed (Table 2). Fungicides applied to the seed were also found. Analysis of talc used to plant untreated seed contained low quantities of the same pesticides, this is likely due to contamination and reflects the difficulties associated with thorough cleaning of equipment between plantings. *Direct sampling of anthers revealed that many of the same compounds were present in maize grown from treated seed*, albeit in far lower concentrations (Table 3). Collection of pollen from traps in the field demonstrated that thiamethoxam was present in 3 of 20 samples, while *pollen containing clothianidin was present in 10 of 20 samples* (Table 4). Fungicides were also frequently detected: *azoxystrobin and propiconazole were found in all pollen samples*, while trifloxystrobin was found in 12 of the 20 samples analyzed. *Maize pollen was frequently collected by foraging honey bees while it was available: maize pollen comprised over 50% of the pollen collected by bees, by volume, in 10 of 20 samples.*



Kieck said:


> I don't doubt or question the toxicity of neonicotinoids in bees or other insects.
> 
> I do question how long neonicotinoids persist in the soil and in plants.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

these type of threads appear every couple of months. Of course if Neonic pesticide use were the cause of CCD, then the CCD impact areas would map to the areas of the country that have the strongest concentrations of neonic pesticides use but it doesn't; however. In areas of strong pesticide use like North Dakota bees thrive and has been reported CCD in areas of the country where no row crops are grown.

pesticides aren't going away any time soon. Perhaps it's just my pref, but I'd rather that the pesticides which are getting used are somewhat naturally derived (as neonics pesticides are derived from tobacco). It's definitely a safer and more targeted pesticide (ie. targets invertebrates) than the first generations of pesticides. Dr. Eric Mussen who studies pesticide affects on bees for a living has mentioned that low concentrations of neonic pesticides on bees (as would happen from secondary exposure via spray on field crops) effects bees the same way as tobacco on humans (as a stimulant) and actually makes the bees faster and more productive. At high concentrations it has the opposite effect and starts to slow bees down. Direct exposure, as in the anomaly of the airborne neonic pesticide blowing directly into hives in Germany that always gets sited, is a lethal dose for bees and causes immediate 'direct death from pesticide' not CCD. 

here's a great link from randy oliver's site
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/


----------



## Oldtimer

Just for a bit of fun this year, when I saw some tobacco seeds being sold for $5, I bought a pack. Ended up with 96 plants which have been harvested and are now drying. I don't smoke but have been hearing all my life about tobacco being used to smoke bees and was curious to try it.

What I'm doing is mixing a tobacco leaf or two with my other smoker fuel. And yes, it DOES make the smoker burn better, and can puff up a good amount of smoke pretty quick. Not sure if it was coincidence but on the odd occasion the bees have been more aggressive than expected perhaps they don't like it.

In any case having read this thread I now realise my mistake. All my bees will have sub lethal doses and I can expect them all to perish from CCD.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Oldtimer,
they're probably cranky because you didn't come by with their fix earlier. you'll need to make some nicotene-based fondant to tide them over between smokings!


----------



## Oldtimer

Now there's a plan. Actually I can feel a new book coming on. "Nicotine Based Beekeeping. The Natural Way".


----------



## Ian

wow thats sure a different direction of discussion from the most typical neonico posts ! Ha ha


----------

