# The Australian distraction



## gmcharlie

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

What we will see is once again you attack a country you know nothing about and as you put it, is very far away. I don't know about the person you quote, I do know there are bleading fools on every contintent, and i know that the Aussie beeks who post here say your not even close on your facts... I tend to belive them.......


----------



## borderbeeman

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



gmcharlie said:


> What we will see is once again you attack a country you know nothing about and as you put it, is very far away. I don't know about the person you quote, I do know there are bleading fools on every contintent, and i know that the Aussie beeks who post here say your not even close on your facts... I tend to belive them.......


[off topic content removed by mod]

I posted links to two articles:
One by Warren Jones - president of the Australian Pollinators Council (?) who has 34 years experience as an Aussie migratory beekeeper. The second is by Jeffrey Gibbs of the Northern Light Candle Company - a beekeeper of decades standing who manufactures candles. Both are extremely concerned about bee deaths linked to neonics.

How is that 'attacking a country'??

I am reporting on the concerns of beekeepers in that country; I am doing them a service by sharing their concerns with the wider world.

Incidentally I know quite a bit about Australia - have visited there and New Zealand and have many friends in both countries, not as many as I have in America, where I have lived for some years, but still, good friends and true.

[off topic content removed by mod]


----------



## yankee joe

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Keep it up Borderbeeman, You have pointed out the facts time after time on this fourm . One day before it's it late these American neonics supporters will waken up, I hope. I love bees. Once again I hope to see honey bees thick in the clover on lawn as I did as child in the 50es.


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

opps my bad, you attack a countrys beekeprs and farmers. which you are not one.......And your beekkeeping knowledge in AUS is unknown.... we have Aussie beeks here...on this forum..... and they point out your wrong constantly, and yet you persist is spreading mistruths... Yankee joe, have you read Randy Olivers article?? I am betting not....... facts tend to allude some people.... you should really read studies and DATA before weighing in....... squawking from a box does not make one an expert.......

lets send Mr Jones an email and discuss the facts....


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> The honeys which are most-valuable from Australia are wild-floral honeys like acacia, *manuka*, eucalyptus, bush mallee, myrtle, meadow honey and a dozen others.


Manuka is not even an Australian honey



borderbeeman said:


> Many beekeepers, according to Jeffrey Gibb, live solitary lives, ranging through the wild bush, collecting wild honey for sale.


That, being your paraphrase of what Jeff may have really said, is such a distortion of reality it is a joke. Australian beekeeping as carried out in what you call the "wild bush" (not a commonly used term in Australia), is done in langstroth hives with beekeepers following the flow across the country. It is advanced, and highly skilled. They are not a bunch of cave men raiding hives and collecting wild honey.



borderbeeman said:


> Incidentally I know quite a bit about Australia - have visited there and New Zealand and have many friends in both countries


OK. So you've been to my country, New Zealand, and have many friends here, Right? Which obviously qualifies you as an expert in our beekeeping related issues. Care to share whose bees it was you looked at while here? 

And oh, you are surrounded by 20 miles of continuous rape seed. Yeah Right.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

And rather than further edit the last post, are you trying to say there is CCD in Australia? There isn't.

No doubt Aussie beekeepers lose bees to pesticides of several classes including neonicitiniods. But if neonictinoids are to be banned, they have to be shown to be worse.

Up to a couple years ago when it mostly broke, Australia has been subjected to several years of severe drought, really bad even by Australian standards. The drought has killed or weakened large numbers of gum trees, the mainstay of Australian honey production. Bees have faired badly, and when I visited the Melbourne beekeepers club there was a lot of discussion and concern about the issue. I'm telling you this to make you aware there are other things can cause problems to bees, than just pesticides.

Neonicitinoids are a pesticide, and as such are a concern to beekeepers, same as all pesticides are. You got real jumpy the other day when you accused NZ farmers of illegal use of DDT, and had a rant about how bad DDT is. So, are neonicitiniods worse? Any evidence?

I visit Australia regularly, I have friends there, and family, my own daughter lives there. I have even been chased by an angry kangaroo. But merely visiting a country does not necessarily make one an expert on all things about it.


----------



## jonathan

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

I can see why borderbeeman is trying to attack the reality in Australia. The fact that Australia has no varroa, widespread neonicotinoid use, yet overwhelmingly healthy bees is a very uncomfortable truth for the single issue anti neonicotinoid people. Australia is an interesting experiment in progress.


----------



## Barry

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> It is advanced, and highly skilled. They are not a bunch of cave men raiding hives and collecting wild honey.


Gotta admit, the cave men raiding hives idea is way more romantic!


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I think ole Borderbeeman would have been far better off not even bringing up the "Australian distraction". How funny are those arguments. "It's far away". "Few Americans have been there" sounds like something out of a 19th century Harpers Weekly. . Oh and by the way we are interacting with some of the strange inhabitants in real time right here on Beesource.


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Thank you oldtimer, I was hoping someone with local knowledge would chime in.....


----------



## borderbeeman

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Manuka is not even an Australian honey
> 
> 
> Actually, you are mistaken about Manuka (though I understand your confusion - I was too!) The trees from which Manuka honey is gathered occur in both New Zealand and Australia. The term 'Manuka' is a Maori name for the trees, rather than a botanical definition - the same trees produce the same honey in Eastern Australia. In New Zealand it is called 'Manuka'- in Australia it is called 'Tea Tree' or Jellybush Honey: same trees, same botanical species - different name. Manuka owns the brand in terms of world marketing.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuka_honey
> 
> "*Mānuka honey is a monofloral honey produced in New Zealand and Australia from the nectar of the mānuka tree*. It has in vitro antibacterial properties, but there is not conclusive evidence of benefit in medical use. It has been classified as a Therapeutic Good in Australia, and has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2007.[1]
> 
> 
> Manuka honey is 'primarily' obtained in New Zealand from the Manuka or Tea Tree,_ *Leptospermum scoparium *_and also from the _*Kunzea ericoides *_ (Kānuka, White tea-tree or Burgan and classified as Leptospermum ericoides prior to 1983).
> 
> Although these two plants are distinguishable by the smoothness of their foliage, the honey produced by each is virtually indistinguishable by pollen, taste and aroma.
> 
> *The honey from both is called Manuka honey*. These species likely originated in Australia/ Tasmania, where there are dozens of Leptospermum species known collectively as *Tea Tree *or Jellybush. The name Tea Tree arose from the custom of making tea from the leaves, purportedly coined by Captain Cook.
> 
> In Australia, this honey is known as Tea Tree honey or Jellybush honey or even Leptospermum honey, and share many of the same characteristics as New Zealand’s Manuka honey (recently a honey with the same properties as Manuka has been found to be produced from Leptospermum polygalifolium, from Australia).
> 
> http://www.mothernature.com.au/honey-manuka.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Mother Nature’s Black Label Manuka Honey is a premium product with a distinctive flavour and a dark amber colour. Manuka honey has a darker and richer taste than clover honey and has strong antibacterial and antifungal properties.
> 
> Manuka honey is a unique type of mono-floral honey produced by bees gathering nectar predominantly from flora found on the Tea Tree bush (Leptospermum scoparium), which is indigenous to New Zealand and the drier east coast of Australia. Manuka (from Māori 'mānuka') is the plant’s common name in New Zealand, also known as 'tea tree' in Australia. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE 'CULTURE' OF AUSTRALIAN BEEKEEPING
> I meant no disrespect whatever to Australian beekeepers in my comments - and you are quite right- I have little knowledge of beekeeping there apart from what I have *read*; my point was that this is true of almost everyone outside Australia. Bayer has exploited this knowledge-gap to use Australia as its 'get out of jail free' card; the pesticide manufacturers can claim almost anything in respect of neonics and Australian bees and nobody - apart from Jeffrey Gibbs and Warren Jones has ever bothered to confront them about their lies.
> 
> It is a vast country, a long way away and few of us have ever been there. It also has an almost unique global resource in that there is still so much natural forest and bush that beekeepers can still 'choose' whether to focus on natural areas for monofloral honeys, rather than being forced to concentrate on arable crops and managed fields.
> 
> Jeffrey Gibbs has written:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To respectfully include the outsider, I have to start with an explanation. Australian Beekeepers are very secretive; they tell you about the honey flow when it is in the drum. . . . They cover vast areas of country searching honey. Each Beekeeper has one or two other Beekeepers entrusted with information closer to home. Our Beekeepers in Australia don't often go to meetings because they have bees to run. Mistrust for Authority runs rife, regulations considered an extra burden, most Beekeepers like to be out on the bees in preference to other duties. The rest, like taxation, the marketing and selling of their honey, wiring frames and filling out forms, is often faithfully left to others.
> 
> Beekeepers have left a lot of important decisions in the hands of others, at times to the detriment of the Honey Industry, because they are busy running bees."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not suggest Aussie beeks were 'living in caves', I said that they lived independent lives, running independent businesses in a country so vast that few Europeans can ever grasp the scale and distances involved. Many of them do live in remote rural places and they travel huge distances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As this graphic shows, Australia is slightly smaller in area than the USA.
> 
> If you consider population, the differences are enormous.
> Population USA 303,824,646 (July 2008 est.) Population Australia 20,600,856 (July 2008 est.)
> Australia has less than 1/15th of the population of the USA, living in a continent that is almost as large as the USA. That means there is vastly more undeveloped country and natural habitat. Beekeepers still have the choice to focus on the natural areas of the country - as do many Americans in mountain areas and wilderness areas. Here in Europe almost the entire landscape is 'managed' for agriculture or industry - the dominance of pesticides is overwhelming, as it is in the USA.
> 
> 
> That is what I took from Jeff Gibbs article and that was all I meant.
Click to expand...


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night (Bayer, Monsanto, etc picked up the tab). Now I can speak as an authority too about Australia!


----------



## borderbeeman

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



D Coates said:


> I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night (Bayer, Monsanto, etc picked up the tab). Now I can speak as an authority too about Australia!


I have tried to find ANY logic or thread of meaning in the above statement - but it is as meaningless and substanceless as a 'bucketful of smoke'.

If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the debate, maybe you should just not bother.
I mean why go to the effort of even reading this section of the Forum if you have nothing to say?
PS if you were trying for Irony or Sarcasm, you missed by a mile. Maybe you should read some Thurber or Stephen Leacock - or even Groucho - he was pretty good at sarcasm.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> They are not a bunch of cave men raiding hives and collecting wild honey.


Just had a LOL moment when I visualized Oldtimer collecting all that "wild honey" while wearing his kangaroo loincloth. That's gotta be tricky keeping those pesky "wild" bees out of the tender spots. Maybe beesource can take up a collection and send you a Ultrabreeze suit..... :lpf:


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

LOL 

Borderbeeman, re what you say about Manuka honey, sorry, your sources are incorrect.

The New Zealand Manuka plant has a close cousin in Australia, they call teatree. When NZ Manuka became very expensive, the Australians investigated their Teatree honey, but found it did not contain UMF, the ingredient that makes Manuka honey expensive. They then experimentally imported some NZ Manuka plants, but found that when grown in Australia, it also did not contain any UMF. 

There has been agitation in Australia to rename their Teatree honey to the NZ Maori name, Manuka, even though it is not the exact same plant, and does not have the same properties as NZ Manuka. I know they have been attempting to find any which way to jump on the NZ Manuka bandwagon. Funny, Australians, who always like to ridicule NZer's about our accent, suddenly want to talk Maori LOL 
I am not aware of what lies behind the jars you show, I do know we send them bulk Manuka honey for re packing. I will investigate the jars you have pictured and report back on this, won't be today though.

Question for you though, whose bees was it you looked at in NZ?


----------



## Brad Bee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



D Coates said:


> I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night (Bayer, Monsanto, etc picked up the tab). Now I can speak as an authority too about Australia!


I watched Crocodile Dundee last night. I'm one up on you! That makes me almost an Australian, right? If one of you Aussies wants to fly me over, I'll come speak at your bee club meeting. I've got over 21 days experience at this.


----------



## VolunteerK9

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Brad Bee said:


> I watched Crocodile Dundee last night. I'm one up on you! That makes me almost an Australian, right? If one of you Aussies wants to fly me over, I'll come speak at your bee club meeting. I've got over 21 days experience at this.


I just knocked back a Foster's. Does that trump a movie?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

.
Didn't have time this morning but now I have forwarded some of your post to people involved in Manuka so as to find out why Manuka honey is being sold as an Australian honey. I'll get back when I've had a reply.
Meantime....




borderbeeman said:


> Actually, you are mistaken about Manuka (though I understand your confusion - I was too!) .....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuka_honey
> 
> "*Mānuka honey is a monofloral honey produced in New Zealand and Australia from the nectar of the mānuka tree*. It has in vitro antibacterial properties, but there is not conclusive evidence of benefit in medical use. It has been classified as a Therapeutic Good in Australia, and has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2007.[1]
> 
> Manuka honey is 'primarily' obtained in New Zealand from the Manuka or Tea Tree,_ *Leptospermum scoparium *_and also from the _*Kunzea ericoides *_ (Kānuka, White tea-tree or Burgan and classified as Leptospermum ericoides prior to 1983).
> 
> Although these two plants are distinguishable by the smoothness of their foliage, the honey produced by each is virtually indistinguishable by pollen, taste and aroma.


Did you get all your information from Wikipedia? Just goes to show that not everything you read on the net is true. Even Wikipedia. 

I produce both Manuka honey, and Kanuka honey. Unlike the little man who writes Wikipedia. I can tell you, without even having to resort to the internet, that they are quite distinguishable from each other. They also have different properties in terms of health benefits. Next time you are on one of your visits to my country, drop in and see me. I'll give you some of each to try.

Kanuka honey is NOT sold as Manuka honey, or at least not by the industry in my country. Surprised Wiki even prints this stuff. Shows the problem with 3rd hand research.

Some of your confusion may be because Kanuka and Manuka bear a superficial resemblance to each other. However genetically they are two very different plants.

While we are waiting for an answer on the Manuka thing, there's a question, more on topic that I asked you, that you forgot to answer. As a follow up to your critique about the evils of DDT, I asked you which you would consider worse. DDT, or Neonicitiniods. I repeat the question.


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to the debate, maybe you should just not bother.


I tried to contribute to your debate and you brushed me off. Said you didn't know why my bees would be healthy. I'll say it again. I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.

So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics. If one were to believe in your dogma, my bees should be crashing from CCD.


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Borderbeeman - I would be interested in hearing your answer to Mr. Palmer's question. If you do answer him, please use facts rather than hysteria.


----------



## borderbeeman

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I have no idea.
Maybe you should look at your varroa treatment. I have had varroa since 1998 and I cannot recall ever "losing a hive to varroa" since I began Integrated Pest Management back in about 2000.

You should get up to speed on the research of Dr Jeff Pettis of the USDA Beltsville lab and also the parallel but independent research of Dr Cedric Alaux from France.

Both of them discovered something quite remarkable. They fed bees a minute dose of neonics - about 1-3ppb of Imidacloprid, at a level they would find in nearby crops. Then they exposed the treated bees to a mild infection with Nosema Ceranae - a bacterial pathogen. The control colonies who were NOT neonics were also exposed to the same levels of Nosema.

The results were very dramatic. 
All the colonies which had been fed Imidacloprid collapsed and died of Nosema.
In the colonies which had NOT been fed Imidacloprid, none of the colonies died, even though their exposure to Nosema was the same.

The conclusion, from both Pettis and Alaux was that neonics, evena t the level of just a few parts per billion, cause the bees'immune system severe damage - leaving them open to infection by viruses, bacteria, fungal diseases.

NEONICS MAY BE THE HIV OF THE BEE WORLD
In this sense neonics appear to work like HIV did in humans. In the early 1990s doctors in San Francisco could not understand why they were seeing hundreds of homosexual men, sying of a weird range of illnesses: pneumonia, hepatitis, tuberculosis, cancer, Kaposi's sarcoma. It was bewildering. The only thing they had in common was that they were gay. 
Later they discovered the HIV virus in theis systems. They realised that HIV actually destroyed the Immune System in these men, leaving them open to a massive range of infections, which killed them. The men APPEARED to die from cancer, pneumonia, hepatitis etc - but the reality was that they were being killed by HIV. because they HAD NO IMMUNE SYSTEM.

Pettis and Alux's work points to a similar process. Neonics destroy the immune system of bees; there are varroa in the hive and they carry viruses and bacteria. The bees also lose their social communication and grooming ability under the impact of neonics - so they stop grooming mites etc. Result - massive explosion of varroa mites; explosion of viral, bacterial and fungal disease - the beekeeper assumes his hive died of varroa.

It didn't - it died because the bees were poisoned by neonics which destroyed their immune system. the varroa, viruses and bacteria were just 'opportunists' - once the door was kicke in they just invade and take over.

EPILOGUE
Pettis discovered something even more remarkable. When he examined the dead bees which had been fed Imidacloprid - and which died of Nosema infection - he was not able to find a single trace of imidacloprid in the pathology of the dead bees - even though he KNEW they had been dosed with this neonic.

His conclusion was that this was a perfect poison; it kills and leaves no trace whatever, even if you have the best lab in America. Dr Henk Tennekes concluded from all this that:

"There is NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE FOR BEES; ANY EXPOSURE DAMAGES THE IMMUNE SYSTEM"

This may give you some insight into why your bees are 'dying of varroa'

Hope this helps/


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Lol! Borderbeeman didn't even answer the question.


----------



## jbeshearse

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Borderbeeman, you are writing fiction. Post a link to the report that states what you state. The study I read from Alaux was nothing close to what you state. The study I read showed that N. ceranae killed more bees than did the neonictinoid. The imicolprid did effect the bees but to a lesser amount than the N. ceranae. The combination of the two was more lethal. But the infection of the Nosema also caused the bees to consume more of the tainted sucrose. So larger mortality percentage might be a foregone conclusion. 

Post the link to the study that supports your statement if you disagree.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Borderbeeman, through this thread and another one, I've asked you a number of questions, being quite reasonable, and on topic. You have steadfastly ignored them. Why? 

What's to hide?

Can we not have a conversation, rather than a series of lectures?


----------



## max2

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I'm reading with interest - out in the wild bush where I live here in Australia.
Oldtimer - could you please give me the Botanical names for manuka and kanuka and I will be able to tell you what we have here and if it is the same.
Must go - my sheela just called me - the roo stew is ready.


----------



## jonathan

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> You should get up to speed on the research of Dr Jeff Pettis of the USDA Beltsville lab


Maybe it's you who needs to get up to speed with what Jeff Pettis thinks, although I suspect you are just selectively quoting some of his comments as you have done many times before. He made it quite clear that what he saw in the lab he was not observing in the field.



> Today, however the leading American researcher who linked the insecticides to outbreaks of bee diseases told Channel 4 News that what he saw in the lab doesn't occur in working hives.
> 
> "The lab study certainly seemed very clear that low levels of pesticides were impacting on honey bee health. But when we look in the field we don't see the same results. Even when colonies that were exposed to low levels we're not seeing outbreaks of the gut parasite pathogen that we saw in the lab," said Dr Jeff Pettis of the US Agricultural Research Service.


Pettis also posted this as a comment below an article in the Independent Newspaper which inferred some dark conspiracy and misrepresented what he had claimed.



> > 'I noticed in your article that there is an implication that my research
> >findings are perhaps being suppressed by the chemical industry. As the author
> >of this study, I can tell you that the truth is that the review process on the
> >paper has simply been lengthy, as is often the case, due to various factors,
> >but that no outside forces are attempting to suppress this scientific
> >information. The findings of an interaction between low level pesticide
> >exposure and an increase in the gut pathogen Nosema were not unexpected; many
> >such interactions are likely within the complex life of a honey bee colony. It
> >is not possible to make a direct comparison with a lab study and what might
> >occur in the field. Lab studies can give us insights into what may be occurring
> >with beehives but we have yet to make this link. Honey bee health is complex
> >and our findings support this. They do not provide a direct link to CCD colony
> >losses but these results do provide leads for further study. Jeff Pettis


Bbman just recycles this stuff over and over on all the bee forums worldwide and even when he is corrected on one, he will put out the erroneous claim somewhere else where he thinks he will get away with it.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



max2 said:


> my sheela just called me .


Better put the shrimp on the barby. 

Manuka = _Leptospermum scoparium_

Kanuka = _Kunzea ericoides_

Haven't heard back from the Manuka big guns yet, but some people lower up the totem pole have told me that Borderbeeman is correct, kinda. 

Australian honey industry has re-named your Teatree honey, to the Maori (a language not even spoken in Australia) Manuka. So they can jump on the Kiwi shirt tails LOL , and sell their product as Manuka. The honey itself does not have the same properties as quality NZ Manuka, the GMO rating is much lower, but by the looks of that advertisement they are not shy to charge an arm and a leg for it regardless. 

Last time I was talking about this with someone from local industry, he was was adamant they would not let the Aussies sell their honey as Manuka, but looks like you guys have somehow outsmarted us.

So I owe Borderbeeman an apology. He is right, and he is more up to date than me.

But hey. Aussies speaking Maori? 

It will be interesting to see, if now there is a buck in it, Aussies will descend into "Manuka wars", like has been going on here. Kind of like the drug trade. Hive thefts, poisonings, assaults, kidnappings. Yup, where there's money......

For you guys in the US who may doubt this, check this advertisement. 20+ UMF Manuka honey being retailed for what works out to better than US$200.00 a pound. Worth killing to get a site? My hives are either on or near Manuka, they are well camouflaged, and I have cameras.

http://www.comvita.co.nz/health-foods/umf-manuka-honey/umf-20plus-manuka-honey.html

So now I've fully apologised Borderbeeman, it is only right you respond in the same spirit by answering a few of my questions. Let's have a conversation!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> ... So I owe Borderbeeman an apology. He is right, and he is more up to date than me....


Very noble! I wish others will apologize for ignorance and unfounded acquisitions. One do not need to visit Australia to have a knowledge... by reading... This game is over because EU already made a decision. EPA would never follow the Europe, so game *is* over


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> .... I asked you which you would consider worse. DDT, or Neonicitiniods. I repeat the question.


What is better, KCN or ricin? KCN is "old" and reliable, ricin is new (relatively) and do not leave traces - one molecule is enough to kill the cell...


----------



## jonathan

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

cerezha. The European ban is for some, not all neonicotinoids for use on some, not all crops.
The suspension of Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam is for two years and comes into force in December 2013.

What do you mean by 'game is over' ?


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



jonathan said:


> ...What do you mean by 'game is over' ?


Decision has been made: there is no reason to discuss it further...


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> ricin is new (relatively) and do not leave traces ..


Ricin is as old as the castor oil plant.

However the OP was talking about neonicitiniods, plus brought up DDT. My question to him was which does he think is worst.

There is a purpose to this question, but I suspect Borderbeeman knows what it is, so will not answer. An old technique used by these people on chat sites to derail sensible discussion when they think they are wrong, will lose. Make statements, if people do not swallow it hook line & sinker but instead ask questions, never answer them, and hope the issue gets buried. Of course if the person was correct in his statements, he would not be afraid to answer questions. Not wanting further discussion gives away the presence of flawed arguments.

But I'm hoping you will answer & prove me wrong Borderbeeman.

Also. the invite to visit me next time you are in my country is totally genuine. You could spend a day working bees with me in what you believe is my toxic little country, I'm really a nice guy, you will enjoy, be well fed and cared for, and my experiment will be to see if some real bees in neonicitinoid country can change some of your beliefs.


----------



## max2

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

My reference here says that the Tea Tree is- Coast Tea-Tree (Leptospermum laevigatum) so it appears to be similar but not the same. It grows here in coastal and wet areas.
The Manuka honey I have seen sold here is from NZ. But I will keep an eye open for any local stuff.
About Australians speaking Maori. Since around 1974 about 650 000 New Zealander's have arrived on our shores and Maori is of course the lingo of preference in some suburbs!


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Won't answer that LOL


----------



## borderbeeman

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> So now I've fully apologised Borderbeeman, it is only right you respond in the same spirit by answering a few of my questions. Let's have a conversation!


Hey Oldtimer, there is no need for any 'apologies' - you haven't done anything 'wrong' in my eyes. I know zip about Manuka honey - I was as surprised as you that it is being sold in both countries. Good luck to every beek who can make a living from it.

I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation. He no longer allows me to start topics and I cannot respond to questions directly.
Sorry - but that is 'the rules' apparently/.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Ricin is as old as the castor oil plant....


 If I remember properly, ricin as a poison was "invented" by KGB, thus, it is relatively new in my time scale. The KCN (added to the icing in the cookies) was used to kill Russian Royal's family favorite Raspytin 20-30 years earlier - it did not work well. Soviet Union is new to me, "Royal" Russia is in the very past 
You could not be poisoned by castor plant or its seeds, ricin needs to be isolated from the seeds by quite sophisticated biochemical process, which was mastered to the degree that now ordinary terrorist could made it.


----------



## max2

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> If I remember properly, ricin as a poison was "invented" by KGB, thus, it is relatively new in my time scale. The KCN (added to the icing in the cookies) was used to kill Russian Royal's family favorite Raspytin 20-30 years earlier - it did not work well. Soviet Union is new to me, "Royal" Russia is in the very past
> You could not be poisoned by castor plant or its seeds, ricin needs to be isolated from the seeds by quite sophisticated biochemical process, which was mastered to the degree that now ordinary terrorist could made it.


I had a student who swallowed a seed from the Castor Oil Plan ( I guess for fun!) and he told me that he was violently sick ( " no need to pump out the stomach" he told me) that he had to be hospitalised. Here is an interesting paper on the issue: http://www.phsource.us/PH/CBRNE/MAB... Chemical and Bioligical Warfare.pdf#page=621


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

"_I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation._"

No BBM, this is because you have a long history of polluting this forum with your intentionally misleading diatribes that are void of supporting facts. 

Further, you do not engage in any type of conversation. You simply post your very political statements and then ignore any points others post which contradicted your religion.

Mr Palmer asked :"_ I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.

So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics._

BBM, please explain how Mr. Palmer can have such good success when, according to you, his bees feed on such poisonous chemicals? That you won't answer this question confirms that you have no intention in engaging in a conversation and are only interested in using this forum as your political soapbox.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



max2 said:


> .. swallowed a seed from the Castor Oil Plan ( I guess for fun!) and he told me that he was violently sick ( " no need to pump out the stomach" he told me) that he had to be hospitalised. ...


 Castor oil is a stimulant laxative. I guess this is what your student experienced. Probably some extra sensitivity to irritation provided by oil. If it would be ricin - there is no antidote  Also - no symptoms 
I have to admit - personally I never consume castor beans, so I do not know what expect.


----------



## clyderoad

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

My guess is that the purpose of posting many of these "politically hot topics" disguised as a genuine conversation is to use the forums as a means of gaining or furthering the search engine optimization of their agendas. There never was any intent to have an informed conversation, only to be found on the first page of some search engines.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Re Castor Oil Plant, 

Quote- "According to the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records, this plant is the most poisonous in the world. Despite this, suicides involving ingestion of castor beans are unheard of in countries like India where castor grows abundantly on the roadsides, which may be attributed to the rather painful and unpleasant symptoms of overdosing on ricin, which can include nausea, diarrhea, tachycardia, hypotension and seizures persisting for up to a week."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil_plant


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
> I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation. He no longer allows me to start topics and I cannot respond to questions directly.
> Sorry - but that is 'the rules' apparently/.


Commenting about moderation is against the rules too. You got to pull that off, so I'm pretty sure you might get away with answering a question.


----------



## Rolande

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in *real time or in real locations*.


So when and from where did you write post #36?



borderbeeman said:


> I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation. He no longer allows me to start topics and *I cannot respond to questions directly*.


Nothing new there then.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> ..."According to the 2007 edition of Guinness World Records, this plant is the most poisonous in the world.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castor_oil_plant


 well, in the same article, the sentence just before your citation: "The toxicity of raw castor beans is due to the presence of ricin. Although the lethal dose in adults is considered to be four to eight seeds, reports of actual poisoning are relatively rare." But, I do not understand your point: are you trying to compromise the information I provided or what? I used to work with ricin (not as a poison) and shared my memories from that time. It was my personal experience. I never eat castor beans, thus, I was not aware that even one bean is dangerous. I apologize for my limited personal knowledge.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> I do not understand your point: are you trying to compromise the information I provided or what?


Well no, when you tried to compromise the information I provided, which was that ricin is as old as the Castor Oil Plant, ie you disputed that, I merely backed what I said.

Thanks for the apology but a little over the top, just cos I recently apologised doesn't mean we all have to start doing it! 

Long as nobody starts eating Castor Oil plants! Diarrhea for a week if you are lucky, or death if not lucky, is not my ideal way to go LOL


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



borderbeeman said:


> I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
> I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation. He no longer allows me to start topics and I cannot respond to questions directly.
> Sorry - but that is 'the rules' apparently/.



Moderator, can we get confirmation that this is indeed the truth?


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt to Barry on this one. Any actions he takes are with what he judges to be the best interests of the forum as a whole in mind. This forum isn't either a free for all or a democracy. It is a creation of Barry's.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



jim lyon said:


> I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt to Barry on this one.


Jim,

If I were a moderator, I'd have sent this guy into oblivion long ago, so I have the highest regard for Barry and commend him on his restraint. However, borderman's story doesn't smell right to me and I was just wondering if a moderator could confirm the claims above. It appears to me that when pushed to answer pointed questions he pulls the "moderator won't let me talk card".


----------



## Proskene

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

The BEST way to get rid of a troll is to stop feeding its ego. If you stop responding eventually it goes away.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Proskene said:


> The BEST way to get rid of a troll is to stop feeding its ego. If you stop responding eventually it goes away.


Agreed! Oops, I just did it again!!


----------



## grondeau

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Michael Palmer said:


> I tried to contribute to your debate and you brushed me off. Said you didn't know why my bees would be healthy. I'll say it again. I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.
> 
> So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics. If one were to believe in your dogma, my bees should be crashing from CCD.


Michael, take a look at my post on the time-dependent effects of imidacloprid. We live in a grey zone, usually just below the toxic threshold. Healthy bees are fine even with a fair level of exposure - especially in the summer. If the goldenrod fails and irrigated corn was all there was - you might have a different experience. Or if you get a KPV outbreak, etc. The reason why this problem has gone unresolved for so long is that most of the time you don't see an effect, either because the bees are strong enough to not mind losses of 30 day bees when they should go to 35 days, or the residuals are low enough that you are a lucky one. What fraction of your bee forage is corn? 
Do you ever wonder if Varroa could be more of a problem because some of the bees are too stoned to scratch? Low quantities of nerve toxin will have behavioral effects long before it kills bees. What behavioral traits do the bees need to better resist Varroa? Is it helpful to have an intact nervous system or does it not really matter? I have my suspicions, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Grondeau: I checked out your web site and read it end to end. Am I mistaking or is missing from any of this research actual evidence that bees anywhere are actually foraging on corn. There is always lots of lab research indicating at what levels neonics are toxic to bees but no research analyzing what pollens are actually in the hives and what levels of neonics are contained in those pollens. I am with MP on this. We have lots and lots of healthy looking hives sitting adjacent to large fields of corn and have yet to sense there is any direct relationship between strong hives and the acreages of corn nearby. You asked Mr. Palmer what percentage of his forage is corn as if it's a given that there is a percentage. I recently openly asked the forum if anyone has actually seen bees foraging in field corn. Personally, I have not and no one else stepped up to say they had either. Surely there is some data out there analyzing the pollens in the hive and what, if any, poisons are found in such pollen. It seems to me that sunflowers and canola may well be a whole different situation but field corn?


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Grondeau, 

You say we live just below the toxic threshold of neonics: 1) Do you know what is the toxic threshold of neonics?; 2) Do you know what level we are currently at? 

Also, you ask Mr. Palmer "what fraction of your bees forage on corn?": 1) Do you know what fraction of bees could forage on corn with no noticeable negative affects to the hive? 2) Do you know what fraction of total pollen in a hive can be corn pollen and the hive will still be healthy?

(BTW, I like your Date Trike, and I, too, spent a huge amount of time working on pulsed power systems for particle acceleration.)

Thanks.


----------



## Jonathan Hofer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



jim lyon said:


> I recently openly asked the forum if anyone has actually seen bees foraging in field corn.


I have seen bees on field corn tassel/flower browsing and collecting pollen.


----------



## grondeau

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I suspect corn is not the first choice for bees. Krupke, in the middle of the corn belt, saw 45% of pollen coming in as corn pollen. I'm guessing if the bees have their choice between goldenrod and corn - they pick goldenrod. Nevertheless, the 4ppb in the pollen that Krupke reports -is roughly the same dose that kills bees outright in 30 days. If that's the stores my bees have for the winter, I would be concerned. Other places- I can't recall where right off the bat, I saw reports of bees bringing in up to ~80% corn pollen at some times. 

From the Krupke paper: 

Later in the season, pollen collected by bees when corn was shedding pollen in the area had up to 88 parts per billion (ppb) of clothianidin in it. These results suggest that there are many potential routes for exposure, but does not identify the key factor. We hypothesize that corn being planted nearby acts as a source of talc which may have contaminated flowers that bees were foraging on. Corn pollen from plants grown from treated seed had much less clothianidin, about 4 parts per billion. This is not enough to kill bees outright, but about 45% of the pollen our bees were collecting at that time was corn pollen. We do not know what effect this level of pesticide has on nurse bees that consume the pollen, or on the larvae they are feeding it to. Clothianidin is fairly stable in the soil with a documented half-life (the amount of time until half of the material is broken down in soil) of up to three years (EPA - 2003). After testing soil from various fields, we found that levels were just as high (about 9 ppb) in a field that had not had treated seed of any kind planted in it for the previous two growing seasons. Our overall conclusion was that the greatest danger occurs at planting time (due to the waste talc from planters), but that bees are exposed to sublethal levels of pesticide throughout the growing season. Our research paper is published online and is freely available (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268).


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Thanks for the follow-up!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Michael Palmer said:


> I tried to contribute to your debate and you brushed me off. Said you didn't know why my bees would be healthy. I'll say it again. I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.
> 
> So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics. If one were to believe in your dogma, my bees should be crashing from CCD.


 Hi Mike
I was thinking about your statement. There are some comments below, but please, keep in mind, I have no intention to escalate this hot topic. I want just discuss as you wish in your statement. But discussion - it is when a few people indeed do express their opinions.

It is very common argument when people stated something like that: I am eating bad food, I obese, I do not exercise BUT I am very healthy and have no health issues. AND then this person made a conclusion - my lifestyle is good because I feel I am healthy. Unfortunately, I observe such ill logic at beesource all the time. You used the same logic: my bees are doing great, thus, they are not sick from neonics! Do you see a problem with such logic? You made a couple of assumptions, which are not proven to be true: connection between neonics and CCD - nobody is saying that neonics cause THE CCD. As far as science going - neonics affected the nervous system and ARE NOT acute to the bees. Since the reason for CCD is unknown, you just could not make such connection. Similarly, you could not make a connection between sickness and neonics - are you a doctor? You just could claim that *your* bees are healthy but it is not enough to claim that neonics (or any other chemical) do not affect your bees or somebody's bees. 

If you have great beekeeping practices and feel your bees are doing remarkably well - it does not mean that other beekeepers have no problem - you could speak only for yourself! Thus, it is not fair to ask somebody to explain to *you*, why *your* bees are not sick. I guess, your good practice involved! So, tell us what is your good practice, which mitigate the negative effect of neonics! See, how it may be flipped?

Now,another aspect of your statement: I was not able to find exact numbers, but it seems to me that rough estimate is that North America has approximately 15 million beehives/colonies. You have 1000+, which is approximately 0.006%. I am sorry, but from statistical point of view, your operation is not significant to draw ANY conclusion  sorry about that. The same as my example (see above) that having unhealthy lifestyle promote good health - would not be accepted by any health organization... on the basis that it is not statistically significant.

My point was that it is not really useful to others to see your statement without explanation what (in your opinion) needs to be done to keep bees healthy? At the end - we all do care about bees!


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> You made a couple of assumptions, which are not proven to be true: connection between neonics and CCD - nobody is saying that neonics cause THE CCD.


In truth, some people are saying neonicitiniods cause CCD. Some go further, and diagnose just about every dead hive as neonics related CCD, further advising the person that they should give up beekeeping as there is no point trying again.



cerezha said:


> As far as science going - neonics affected the nervous system and ARE NOT acute to the bees.


Not so. Neonicitinoids can be acute to bees, will kill bees same as any other insecticide.



cerezha said:


> Now,another aspect of your statement: I was not able to find exact numbers, but it seems to me that rough estimate is that North America has approximately 15 million beehives/colonies. You have 1000+, which is approximately 0.006%. I am sorry, but from statistical point of view, your operation is not significant to draw ANY conclusion  sorry about that. The same as my example (see above) that having unhealthy lifestyle promote good health - would not be accepted by any health organization... on the basis that it is not statistically significant.


Spurious argument. If we followed this logic, NOBODY could claim ANYTHING about bees, on any subject, as nobody has what you define as a "statistically significant" number of hives.

Please bear in mind that some of the papers released showing effects of neonicitiniods on bees, use research done on a handful of individual bees, force fed in a laboratory. How "statistically significant" is that?



cerezha said:


> are you a doctor?


It is not Mikes job, to be a doctor, and explain authoritatively why his bees are doing well, you have it the wrong way round. Others have made claims about Neonics causing CCD. Mike has simply put his hand up and said he has 1000 hives living amongst neonics and thriving. He does not have to explain why. The others, who made the original claim about neonics, have to back themselves if they can, and explain why. Not Mike, he's just making a statement of fact.


----------



## Barry

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> If you have great beekeeping practices and feel your bees are doing remarkably well - it does not mean that other beekeepers have no problem - you could speak only for yourself! Thus, it is not fair to ask somebody to explain to *you*, why *your* bees are not sick.


Then the flip side to this is that borderbeeman and others can only speak for themselves and not project on everyone else that the sky is falling down due to neonics. Thus, it is not fair to constantly tell people their bees are sick.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Barry said:


> Then the flip side to this is ... others can only speak for themselves and not project on everyone else that the sky is falling down due to neonics. Thus, it is not fair to constantly tell people their bees are sick.


 Well, I keep this discussion for the sake of discussion, not arguments (I had enough). Basically, I agree that, for instance, people with 3rd-degree lung cancer from smoking should speak out about their health issue. But, as I was trying to show in my previous message, quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ... meantime having 3rd degree undiagnosed cancer - they believed that they are healthy! In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006% 

Now, if he wanted to do something useful to the community - the great way to do so is to share his valuable expertise with concerned public. Write a book, create video about his super healthy bees... instead asking somebody why his bees are doing great. There is a great book by Michael Bush for small scale beekeepers. It would be beneficial to everyone to have the book from another Michael how to keep bees healthy at larger scale in our challenging time when averages loses are 30%...


----------



## grondeau

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Barry said:


> it is not fair to constantly tell people their bees are sick.


It is unfair to the bees to assume that if they are consistently ingesting >~ 1ppb imidacloprid or similar concentrations of other neonics, that they are well. They may be surviving, however. It comes down to exposure levels, time of exposure, and secondary factors like pathogens. Probably safe exposure levels are less than what the chemical companies are telling us. Probably most of the time, our bees find forage that is not too contaminated.


----------



## RiodeLobo

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> But, as I was trying to show in my previous message, quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ... meantime having 3rd degree undiagnosed cancer - they believed that they are healthy! In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006%


Umm, I am inclined to believe Mr. Palmer if he states his bees are healthy. In the scientific method it only takes one contrary finding to negate the hypothesis.


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Well, In case of Michael Palmer - his statement was counterproductive in exact way as many other statements from pro-against neonics people. The statement that HIS bees are doing great in the presence of neonics is just misleading statement from 0.006%
> 
> Now, if he wanted to do something useful to the community - the great way to do so is to share his valuable expertise with concerned public. Write a book, create video about his super healthy bees......


Something useful to the beekeeping community??? Create a video?? Teach a class?? Write a book??

Why would I ever do such a thing??


----------



## Barry

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> quite often, people sent wrong messages stating that they are (or bees) perfectly OK ...


I don't see anyone saying this. There most likely are no "perfectly ok" bees. But there are commercial beekeepers with many hives next to neonic crops where their bees are OK, maybe not perfect, but nothing noticeably wrong. This is a far cry from some who are saying they lost all their bees due to neonic crops. A rather large gap here, and it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Barry said:


> ... it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.


 Exactly - if Mr. Palmer's bees are doing OK in neonic crops, it does not mean that the rest of 15 million beehives/colonies are doing equally well! Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Michael Palmer said:


> Something useful to the beekeeping community??? Create a video?? Teach a class?? Write a book??
> 
> Why would I ever do such a thing??


 To share your wisdom instead asking ... sorry  stupid question. Nothing personal


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!


But where's the evidence that bees in Australia are not okay? I've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. I could make all types of claims of Australian bees but if there's no evidence they are merely unfounded claims.


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Yes, it is the unfounded claims that are hurting the discussions of neonics. Making big but unsupported claims obfuscates the issues, and makes it much harder to figure out what is really happening to bees. Which, could possibly be the whole point of such posts, I guess.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



D Coates said:


> But where's the evidence that bees in Australia are not okay? I've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. I could make all types of claims of Australian bees but if there's no evidence they are merely unfounded claims.


Look
If you want peaceful meaningful discussion on the substance of this thread - go to the beginning and read the initial statement opening the thread. My point (if you read carefully) in the recent post was that sometime people do not see the evidence (my example with cancer smoker, see above) or even worse - they do not want to see the evidence. In such situation, instead real evidence, they prefer to do "grande" conclusions regarding entire country AND at the same time ignore the fact that 27 european countries ban neonics beginning December for 2 years.


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Data, data, data! I want to see data! I don't care about analogies. I don't care about what some famous person said. I don't care about pretty language. I don't care about politics. I don't care that someone posted a million vacuous posts. I want to see good data produced by good science. If we don't have good data, then we can't make a good decision, and no amount of blah blah will change that. If we don't have good data, the next step is to generate good data, rather than jumping to premature conclusions.

JMHO


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

I read it, and I read it carefully, and yes I picked up the condecending tone too. You seem to be fine ignoring the evidence that there's no smoking (puin intended) gun in Australia but seem to be quick to condemn others for not seeing the "evidence". I see the lack of Australian issues as evidence that neonic's are not the boogieman others claim. 

You disagree, and post "...27 european countries ban neonics beginning December for 2 years." as evidence of guilt. Yet no guilt has been proven. If it was they wouldn't ban it for only 2 years. Then you move on to the sky-is-falling 3rd stage undiagnosed cancer reference..., (so by that thinking I have cancer until I prove otherwise?)

So be it, but you have some of the same blinders on that you are accusing others of having. Yours merely are blinded to the opposing evidence.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> To share your wisdom instead asking ... sorry  stupid question. Nothing personal


Perhaps this may help you better understand Michael Palmer's response. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Now,another aspect of your statement: I was not able to find exact numbers, but it seems to me that rough estimate is that North America has approximately 15 million beehives/colonies. You have 1000+, which is approximately 0.006%. I am sorry, but from statistical point of view, your operation is not significant to draw ANY conclusion  sorry about that. The same as my example (see above) that having unhealthy lifestyle promote good health - would not be accepted by any health organization... on the basis that it is not statistically significant.


I highly suspect that you're not parsing this data very well. First, it would make much more sense to compare commercial operations than simply comparing the total number of hives in the US to MP's 1000 hives - simplistic at best. I suspect that there are on the order of 1400 (perhaps far fewer) commercial operations in the US. Now, before you start comparing and jumping to statistical "conclusions", e.g., 1/1400, one must first survey all 1400 and evaluate methods and practices for each and then start looking at the many factors leading to survival rates among this group. There may indeed be some statistical significance to MP operation, but it certainly cannot be ascertained as you suggest.


----------



## AstroBee

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Exactly - if Mr. Palmer's bees are doing OK in neonic crops, it does not mean that the rest of 15 million beehives/colonies are doing equally well! Yes, it was my entire point that such "grande" arguments (all Australia is covered with neonics and bees are OK) are not right and misleading!



Your statements are really quite contradictory. You didn't seem to blink an eye when you quoted the 0.006% above and how statistically insignificant MP results are. By saying 0.006% you are explicitly assuming that the remaining hives (15,000,000-1000) are NOT doing well.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The austrlian distraction*



shinbone said:


> "_I wouild love to respond to your questions but the Moderator is not allowing me to post in real time or in real locations.
> I assume this is to destroy any proper conversation._"
> 
> No BBM, this is because you have a long history of polluting this forum with your intentionally misleading diatribes that are void of supporting facts.
> 
> Further, you do not engage in any type of conversation. You simply post your very political statements and then ignore any points others post which contradicted your religion.
> 
> Mr Palmer asked :"_ I keep more than 1000 colonies including wintered nucleus colonies and production colonies. I made 100+ lbs/colony from the honey producers. My bees are surrounded by corn treated with clothianidin. My winter losses are between 10% and 15%...same as always since varroa arrived. Diagnosing the losses, it becomes obvious the most of the losses were from varroa.
> 
> So, tell me why my bees aren't aren't sick from neonics._
> 
> BBM, please explain how Mr. Palmer can have such good success when, according to you, his bees feed on such poisonous chemicals? That you won't answer this question confirms that you have no intention in engaging in a conversation and are only interested in using this forum as your political soapbox.


He did answer the question. He wrote in Post #22 "I have no idea."


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Michael Palmer said:


> Something useful to the beekeeping community??? Create a video?? Teach a class?? Write a book??
> 
> Why would I ever do such a thing??


Very funny Michael. Apparently Sergey is not aware of the lectures, videos, magazine articles, in progress book and Forum Posts you have contributed to the US beekeepers. 

Sergey, maybe a web search is in order.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Barry said:


> I don't see anyone saying this. There most likely are no "perfectly ok" bees. But there are commercial beekeepers with many hives next to neonic crops where their bees are OK, maybe not perfect, but nothing noticeably wrong. This is a far cry from some who are saying they lost all their bees due to neonic crops. A rather large gap here, and it should be cause for a little more reserve in how grand our statements are.


Instead of "Okay", wouldn't it be more accurate to say productive and that colony mortality is relatively low?


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

I would say that "I have no idea" is a response to a question, but is not an answer. But this is splitting semantic hairs. The fact remains that BorderBeeMan, after all his lengthy railing against neonics, turned out to be clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn - a result which is in direct contradiction to BBM's position that neonics as used in the field are deadly to bees. This shows that BBM has no idea what he is talking about, which was the main point. In other words, the emperor has no clothes.

I will say at least he was honest in professing his ignorance. That I can admire.

I, too, do not know what affect neonics is having on bees, but, I am not posting huge anti-neonic diatribes and making grandiose unsupported statements about the evils of neonics. I am simply trying to learn what is going on, and I quickly realized that BBM was little more than a fraud.

All in IMHO, of course.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



AstroBee said:


> ... 1/1400, one must first survey all 1400 and evaluate methods and practices for each and then start looking at the many factors leading to survival rates among this group. There may indeed be some statistical significance to MP operation, but it certainly cannot be ascertained as you suggest.


 Sure, I have no problem with this - my point was that it is not possible to make "grande" conclusions based only on MP operation. You got it right! Interestingly, 1/1400 is 0.07% - apparently my very rough estimate was (right) close (corrected!!!). In this discussion, I do not express ether for or against neonics. I merely respond on MP request that somebody should explain to HIM why HIS bees are doing well in neonics. It is non sense to me (asking somebody.....). Also, unwillingness to share success story speaking something about commercial beekeeping practices.
*Correction: 1000/15000000 == 0.006%
1/1400 == 0.07%, 10x more*


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The austrlian distraction*



shinbone said:


> .... clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn...


 Me - too. I have no idea how MP did it because he refused to explain  I guess, it is commercial secret... My point was that MP statement is not enough to think that all bees are doing OK in neonic fields. I was trying to explain my point of view on it, that such logic could not prove any statement. MP's operation is only 0.07% - he could not speak for everybody. That's it. That was my point.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> Instead of "Okay", wouldn't it be more accurate to say productive and that colony mortality is relatively low?


 MP stated that he has a colony loss of 10% when average is 30% and more. He did not know how it was happened and he asked the borderbeeman to explain to him why his bees are doing well.... 
sorry, nothing personal.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> ... Sergey is not aware of the lectures, videos, magazine articles, in progress book...


 I apologize for my ignorance - no, I am not. But, it seems to me that MP also do not know how to keep loss at 10%, because he asked borderbeeman why his (MP) bees are doing well...


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Also, unwillingness to share success story speaking something about commercial beekeeping practices.


How long do you think that would take for Michael to do? How much detail would you expect from him? He is running his operation, supervising employees and such. When would he have the time?


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



AstroBee said:


> ... the remaining hives (15,000,000-1000) are NOT doing well.


 No, it is not true - I stated only, that 0.006% are not significant alone. Again - I am not arguing - I just present my view. Sorry if I was not clear in my intentions.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> MP stated that he has a colony loss of 10% when average is 30% and more. He did not know how it was happened and he asked the borderbeeman to explain to him why his bees are doing well....
> sorry, nothing personal.


His 10 to 15% Winterloss is well below the National Winterloss Average and not that much higher than Winterloss Averages pre-Varroa. 

Of the 30% National Winterloss as reported, how much of these losses have to do w/ neonicetinoids? I doubt that there is any data on that. Is there?

Nothing personal? Of course not. I didn't take it that way and neither should you.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> I apologize for my ignorance - no, I am not. But, it seems to me that MP also do not know how to keep loss at 10%, because he asked borderbeeman why his (MP) bees are doing well...


lol, Michael knows perfectly well how to keep his losses at acceptable rates.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> How long do you think that would take for Michael to do? How much detail would you expect from him? He is running his operation, supervising employees and such. When would he have the time?


 Mark
I have deep respect to people like yourself, Mr. Palmer and other 1398, who is working very hard in commercial operation. My point was that it is not right to make a conclusion that all bees are OK between neonics fields based on 0.006-0.07% sample. If you ask the question, you need to know the answer. May be you could answer for Mr. Palmer? Why his bees are doing well? For instance, when Michael Bush is commenting on beesource, he always post a references to the book, so people could learn.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

OK, this is getting circuitous.

From what I can tell by reading some of Michael Palmer, his bees do well because of good beekeeping. That's all.

The fact they are surrounded by neonics does not seem to affect them. Mike may or may not have some theories as to why, but really, he probably doesn't know, other than that the effect of neonics on his bees is not the sky falling down scenario that some claim it ought to be.

The reason this has got circuitous Cerezha, is you are constantly trying to work the argument around to the position that Mike has to explain why his bees are unaffected by neonics. But to repeat what has already been said, it is up to people who claim his bees should be affected by the neonics, to explain why their claims are being shown to be untrue in this case. 

No reason Mike has to explain anything, least of all respond to comments with a "tone".


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

_ . . . it is up to people who claim his bees should be affected by the neonics, to explain why their claims are being shown to be untrue in this case. _

Yes, that is indeed the point!


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.

Why should you?

If I made the claim, I would have to explain how it affects your bees, not demand you do.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> OK, this is getting circuitous....


 Oldtimer
I purposely do not touch neonics because we have a history of the hot "discussions" going nowhere. If Mr. Plamer's bees are doing 300% better than average (winterloss 10% vs 30%) it may be beneficial to 1399 other commercial operations to learn from Mr. Palmer's expertise - if everyone will have 10% loses, we could just forget neonics! I am trying to see a positive side in this story.  Since, loses in average around 30%, to me it means that not so many people learned from Mr. Plamer's how to do a better beekeeping. But, yes, I agree - 10% loss is indication of good beekeeping practice and we all need to learn from Mr. Palmer. I personally, feel bad that did not manage to read any of Mr. Palmer's books or publications. My excuse is that I am a hobbyist and experiment with my bees in my own way. Right now, I am solving the problem, how my formerly nice bees in their anger managed to penetrate PM vented suit many times? My theory is that they regressed so much that their butts are small enough to get trough first mesh layer... or may be I unintentionally selected them to penetrate vented suit?


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.....


 Yes, it shows the difference in our thinking. If somebody tells me that it looks like my bees may be affected by microwaves from the antenna (!) recently installed near my place (details!) - than I would investigate the case to see if anything true in such statement. I would not claim that my bees are OK just because I think so. Than, until issue with microwaves resolved, I would insist to shut down the antenna - I need a proof that it is safe to me, my kids and, yes, my bees. This is how regulatory agencies work - it needs to be proven, that it is safe, not reverse. This is why EU banned neonics - the companies have two years to prove, that it is safe. Nobody is going to show that it is poisonous...


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Mark
> I have deep respect to people like yourself, Mr. Palmer and other 1398, who is working very hard in commercial operation. My point was that it is not right to make a conclusion that all bees are OK between neonics fields based on 0.006-0.07% sample. If you ask the question, you need to know the answer. May be you could answer for Mr. Palmer? Why his bees are doing well? For instance, when Michael Bush is commenting on beesource, he always post a references to the book, so people could learn.


Was Michael making that conclusion? Or was he asking BBM to tell him why his bees are not dying being next to fields of corn. Isn't that BBM's premise? That such crops are killing bees?

I would not presume to speak for Michael Palmer. He is the one to do that.

Some things I do know are that Michael doesn't migrate and he raises his own queens and has done so over a long period of time.


----------



## Barry

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Yes, it shows the difference in our thinking. If somebody tells me that it looks like my bees may be affected by microwaves from the antenna (!) recently installed near my place (details!) - than I would investigate the case to see if anything true in such statement. I would not claim that my bees are OK just because I think so. Than, until issue with microwaves resolved, I would insist to shut down the antenna - I need a proof that it is safe to me, my kids and, yes, my bees. This is how regulatory agencies work - it needs to be proven, that it is safe, not reverse. This is why EU banned neonics - the companies have two years to prove, that it is safe. Nobody is going to show that it is poisonous...


This explains the roundabout we're having. I'd tell the someone to bugger off!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> ...Some things I do know are that Michael doesn't migrate and he raises his own queens and has done so over a long period of time.


 See! It is already useful! I feel uncomfortable discussing Mr. Palmer behind his back. I really respect his efforts to keep bees healthy. If he wanted to comment on it - it would be beneficial to many.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

 you gotta get out into other Forums Sergey. I think this is pretty common knowledge written by Michael himself. Not that I know a lot about other beekeepers on beesource myself I guess.

Being a good beekeeper for perhaps 40 years helps too. Though I guess there are others who have been losing bees who have as many years experience as Michael.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Barry said:


> This explains the roundabout we're having. I'd tell the someone to bugger off!


 Yes, I agree. 
But this is how the system works - company must provide the evidence that chemical is safe, not reverse... unfortunately, US system does not work well to protect citizens - it issues regularly temporary permits before evidence that the chemical is safe has been provided... than these temporary permits extended to infinity...


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> you gotta get out into other Forums Sergey....


 I will miss your comments, Mark!


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> ... there are others who have been losing bees who have as many years experience as Michael.


 Yes, why is it? Why 30% loss, not 10?


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> See! It is already useful! I feel uncomfortable discussing Mr. Palmer behind his back. I really respect his efforts to keep bees healthy. If he wanted to comment on it - it would be beneficial to many.


Just what am I supposed to say? Neonics scare the crap out of me? They do.

All this talk about me...all I did is reply to BBM who said all the bees in the US are dying from Neonics. He has it all figured out right down to how many colonies per mile are crashing. While I can't comment on all the other beekeepers' bees I can about mine. 

I practice GBB...Good Basic Beekeeping. I raise my own stocks, and queens from good colonies. I try to keep the varroa load down. I keep bees in an area where nectar and pollen flows are numerous and long lasting. 

I diagnose every dead colony...and this winter is no different that any other. The majority of losses were from varroa. There were a handful of queenless and drone layer colonies, and two colonies in the operation starved. I've replaced all the readouts with nucleus colonies I made last summer. The weak colonies and failing queens are boosted and re-queened with nucleus colonies I made last summer. And are all my apiaries and all my bees perfect? No, they aren't. It's still a struggle to keep them going. There are still losses and frustrations. 

Other than what I've said above, what do you want from me? My life's work has been all about learning how to keep healthy and productive bees. Do you honestly think I could teach you everything I know and do...in BeeSource posts? 

So when I ask someone like BBM to explain his dogma, and all I get is a shrug of shoulders....I gotta get back to work.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> MP stated that he has a colony loss of 10% when average is 30% and more.


Does anyone know where this 30% loss number comes from? USDA Survey? AIA Data? What's the breakdown of the data? How many of the 30% losses come from diseases (AFB, EFB, etc.), starvation, or other causes? Are any of these losses directly attributable to neonicetinoid pesticides?

W/ commercial beekeepers declining in numbers and handling more and more colonies one of them lossing 50% of their colonies for whatever reason would really effect the data, wouldn't it? And w/ how things are reported in the News Media the general public might assume these losses are all because of pesticides, when they aren't.

When it comes to Winterloss I look forward to some loss. Were I to have zero Winterloss I would have other opportunities or problems. Depending on your point of view.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



gmcharlie said:


> What we will see is once again you attack a country you know nothing about and as you put it, is very far away. I don't know about the person you quote, I do know there are bleading fools on every contintent, and i know that the Aussie beeks who post here say your not even close on your facts... I tend to belive them.......


I am wondering what the President of the Australian Crop Pollinators Association, as well as the others quoted that live in Australia would know about Australia and how they keep bees. Since it is the comments of them that are being presented here.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The austrlian distraction*



jonathan said:


> The fact that Australia has no varroa,


Recently I have seen at least one comment that indicates this is no longer true. Bees imported to Canada from Australia have been found to have Varroa mites.


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

A post is a post. Anyone can make a claim. Do you have a responsible news report that reports this?


----------



## shinbone

*Re: The austrlian distraction*

I found no mention on the internet that bees imported to Canada from Australia arrived in Canada already infested with varroa mites.

The article linked below was published May 13, 2013 in Perth, and reports that Australian bees are currently still free of varroa mites, i.e. "_ . . . West Australia's biosecure bees, which are free of exotic diseases._"

http://au.news.yahoo.com/local/wa/a/-/local/17107175/wa-bees-give-canadians-a-buzz/

The closest mention on the internet I found of varroa mites and Australia is the following article from November, 2012, about bees with varroa being found on boat docked in a Sydney, Austraila, harbor, but the bees were prevented from ever actually going ashore. Apparently, it was a wild swarm that had alighted in the ship's cargo hoist crane structure while the ship was in Singapore waters and then traveled to Austraila on the ship. "_ none of the bee or the varroa destructor mites escaped_" I think means the swarm was exterminated on the ship. A close call for Australia's bees for sure.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3639182.htm

I would pressume, though, that it is just a matter of time before Australia's bees get varroa mites.


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The austrlian distraction*



shinbone said:


> I would pressume, though, that it is just a matter of time before Australia's bees get varroa mites.


I fully agree. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy but a little incident like this that's missed is all it takes.


----------



## max2

*Re: The austrlian distraction*



Daniel Y said:


> Recently I have seen at least one comment that indicates this is no longer true. Bees imported to Canada from Australia have been found to have Varroa mites.


Varroa in bees from Australia? I'm in shock. The district Bee inspector is a friend and he has not told me - could you please inform me where this information comes from, Daniel. Many thanks


----------



## max2

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Daniel Y said:


> I am wondering what the President of the Australian Crop Pollinators Association, as well as the others quoted that live in Australia would know about Australia and how they keep bees. Since it is the comments of them that are being presented here.


I have a letter in front of me from the Minister of Agriculture in my state and correctly states that " most beekeepers are keeping their bees in native forests and State Forests..where there is minimal exposure to chemicals"

I'm still waiting for a response from the Federal Minister.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Michael Palmer said:


> ...I practice GBB...Good Basic Beekeeping. I raise my own stocks, and queens from good colonies. I try to keep the varroa load down. I keep bees in an area where nectar and pollen flows are numerous and long lasting. ...


 Michael, many thanks for respond. Your success is remarkable and is a lesson to other commercial beekeepers. You stated that you have "pre-varroa" loses, which is very interesting because many at beesource attributed their loses to varroa (using this argument against neonics). Thus, if your loses are not effected by varroa (pre-varroa level) than this argument should work in exact the same way as anti-neonics argument (that you have no loses neonics related). So, based on your experience, apparently, two opposite conclusions are dismissed: (1) neonics involved in high winterloss; (2) varroa caused the high winterloses.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



max2 said:


> I have a letter in front of me from the Minister of Agriculture in my state ...


 Is it possible to post the copy here? Would be useful.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> Does anyone know where this 30% loss number comes from? USDA Survey? AIA Data? What's the breakdown of the data? ...


 Mark, as you suggested to me to search internet for Mr. Palmers published work, the same way I would suggest to you to search internet for winterloss data - there are plenty of data! 30% is very minimal estimate. See, how it works? If Mr.Palmer has 10%, in order to have 30% average, some folks should have 50% loss - to balance  Mr.Palmers outstanding result. Could you tell us your loses?


----------



## max2

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

It is a hard copy and I have no idea how to scan...


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> Does anyone know where this 30% loss number comes from? USDA Survey? AIA Data? ...


Jim Belli, president of the Illinois State Beekeepers Association, who has 16 colonies at the Mill Creek Nursery he owns in Wadsworth, said he experienced losses of 30 percdent to 40 percent; there are 60,000 bees in a colony during the height of summer activity.

“They do a voluntary bee survey every year, and the preliminary results show 30 to 40 percent of the bee population died,” he said. “That’s a lot of bees across the nation.” http://posttrib.suntimes.com/photos...he-buzz-about-bees-is-anything-but-sweet.html

This is from article with Barry, the Moderator. He did not object.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



max2 said:


> It is a hard copy and I have no idea how to scan...


 Well, I think, you are living in different universe  ... paper letters (not E-mail) ... my daughters (and wife) use iPhone for everything including taking picture of anything and sending them anywhere... is it common in Australia to see 10 out of 10 people typing on their iPhones simultaneously in any place,any time of the day/night? I saw it in Mero in Russia and it is common in US. I have to admit that I do not have iPhone or similar. I have old cell-phone, which I do not use so often  

My suggestion would be to find somebody with iPhone.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Could you tell us your loses?


No, I didn't count my losses.

You and a number of other folks have used the 30% loss statement. My question was "Where did it come from?" Is it something you heard on the TV News?

I will do a WebSearch, I just thought maybe someone remembered where they got the number from.

Isn't the 30% loss being used the number of colonies across the Nation that died fiscal year April 2012 through March 2013?


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Well there is this:
http://www.abfnet.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=238
Which pretty much shows winter hive losses where they have been in recent years with the exception of a noticeable improvement last year.


----------



## Michael Palmer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Michael, You stated that you have "pre-varroa" loses, which is very interesting because many at beesource attributed their loses to varroa (using this argument against neonics).


I did? Exactly what are "pre-varroa"losses?


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

You didn't. I did. Before the days of varroa what were your winterloss numbers like? 5 to 10%?

Alright Sergey I looked at a cpl of the News Reports about losses. I still didn't see what I wanted. The breakdown of what parts of the 30% loss are attributable to what causes.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> You didn't. I did. Before the days of varroa what were your winterloss numbers like? 5 to 10%?


 Sorry for confusion. My point was that 10% loses are comparable to the loses without (before) varroa. 



sqkcrk said:


> Alright Sergey I looked at a cpl of the News Reports about losses. I still didn't see what I wanted. The breakdown of what parts of the 30% loss are attributable to what causes.


 In the light of THIS discussion, it is easy: 10% natural loss, not from neonics, not from varroa; 20% - non-best beekeeping practice, which may include everything including varroa, chemicals, pollination (transportation), stress etc.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Cerezha, just in case you missed it.



Michael Palmer said:


> I diagnose every dead colony...and this winter is no different that any other. The majority of losses were from varroa. There were a handful of queenless and drone layer colonies, and two colonies in the operation starved.


That statement does not mesh with the idea that neonicitinoid treated crops should be causing CCD in hives in proximity, unfortunately for the believers.
Two pages of cunningly worded argument aimed at boxing MP into some kind of corner, will not change that.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Cerezha, just in case you missed it:... *MP wrote: *The majority of losses were from varroa.


 Yeah, I know, but Mark stated (my mistake, I mixed up with Mr. Palmer) that 10% is "pre-varroa" loss. So, it is difficult to me understand how varroa-loss may be at "pre-varroa" level? Could you explain?
What is your normal loses?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Cerezha you misquoted me in the above post. I would prefer in future that if I am quoted, only the words I said please. IE, don't attribute the words of others, to me.



cerezha said:


> Yeah, I know, but Mark stated (my mistake, I mixed up with Mr. Palmer) that 10% is "pre-varroa" loss. So, it is difficult to me understand how varroa-loss may be at "pre-varroa" level? Could you explain?


What's difficult about it? Not sure what you want me to explain. Specially since I didn't make the statement.

My losses?

I have 2 separate groups of hives, treatment free, and treated. The losses of the TF hives are a little hard to define because they have been started from just one hive and built up by constant splitting. However I have slowed this process over the last year & allowed to die anything that was overrun by varroa, except for 4 hives I took out of the program and treated. All up losses over the last two years are something around 50%, depending on how and when you define hive numbers.

Of the treated hives, losses are basically zero this year. However it depends how you define a loss. Couple hives got robbed due to poor management on my part and by the time I picked it up, one was queenless and almost a write off. However I combined a nuc with it, so would you call this a loss? Don't know. There's been other hives I've intervened to save such as one 2 days ago that had a drone laying queen I requeened it. 
So if you are talking about actual complete losses of the treated hives, I could claim zero this year. But if you count ones that had to have a nuc added, or some other major intervention, 3 to 5 hives depending how you define it, so out of my 100 or so hives, 3 to 5 percent.

This does not make me a better beekeeper than anyone in the US with higher losses. US is a much harder climate for bees, and the commercial beekeepers do not have the luxury of only running 100 hives and being able to give a lot of time to each one.

What is the point of your question?


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> ....What is the point of your question?


 Oldtimer, wow - zero % loses! Sorry for misquoting you - I was thinking that it is clear which part is yours and which is not (corrected). Sorry about that. As for my question - it is related to our discussion. I was impressed with 10% "pre-varroa" loss, which I interpreted as a "baseline" - everything above may be interpreted as varroa-related, but Mr. Palmer indicated that most his loses (within 10%) were from varroa. I could not understand how his loses may be at "pre-varroa" level with varroa? To me it means that 10% shows just fluctuation, which may be anything (apparently including varroa). I asked you to see if your data could help to establish more realistic baseline. By the way - thank you for sharing! Zero loses indicated your beekeeping practice is great! It looks like, loses above baseline (which is not established yet) may be attributed to inefficient treatment and/or poor beekeeping practice as well as to other factors including chemicals, stress, immune system compromise etc. Many thanks for detailed comment.

Loses below baseline - good beekeeping practice! Now we just need to establish the baseline.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> No, I didn't count my losses.
> 
> You and a number of other folks have used the 30% loss statement. My question was "Where did it come from?" Is it something you heard on the TV News?
> 
> I will do a WebSearch, I just thought maybe someone remembered where they got the number from.
> 
> Isn't the 30% loss being used the number of colonies across the Nation that died fiscal year April 2012 through March 2013?


Bee informed for 2012/2013 reported losses of 45.1% for US beekeepers. An increase of 19.8% over the previous year.

95% of the responders where backyard beekeepers which if the city bees are doing better than country bees may mean these numbers are actually low.

Back In February there where stories every where you turned about the shortage of bees for California.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

How many acres didn't get pollinated?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

No idea I didn't write the reports. Better question is. How many acres did not get adequate bees to maximize pollination. My bet is all of them.
I know I saw at least one report on a broker that was not able to fill contracts for even long standing customers. How many acres did not get served. I do not know.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



sqkcrk said:


> How many acres didn't get pollinated?


http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/...lion-lbs-in-2013-206042811.html?m=y&smobile=y


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Oh. An all time record crop. What a surprise I thought there were stories everywhere.



> Back In February there where stories every where.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Oh. An all time record crop. What a surprise I thought there were stories everywhere.


Well actually there were lots of stories. Hindsight can help us judge how well balanced they were. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Dan Rather probably wont bring the cameras back to the Almond orchards to do a follow up on the nut set.


----------



## TWall

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



> In the light of THIS discussion, it is easy: 10% natural loss, not from neonics, not from varroa; 20% - non-best beekeeping practice, which may include everything including varroa, chemicals, pollination (transportation), stress etc.


I'm not sure you can call 'pre-varroa' natural losses. There were pesticide kills of colonies prior to varroa and neonics. There was AFB. There was PPB.

I think varroa and the viruses they transmit are a moving target when it comes to control. From the few anecdotal reports I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses.

Tom


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



jim lyon said:


> I think it's a pretty safe bet that Dan Rather probably wont bring the cameras back to the Almond orchards _to do a follow up on* the nut set.*_


The nut set? I don't follow that group either! :lookout: 



Nutz!

:ws:


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Almonds Update:

May 2013

The monthly shipment report was released today and California shipped 129.5
million pounds of almonds in April, down 12.8% from shipments of 148.5
million a year ago. Domestic shipments were up by nearly 13% to 51.3
million pounds, but exports at 78.2 million pounds were sharply weaker with
very few bright spots.

The Subjective Estimate was released last week forecasting the 2013 crop at
2.00 billion pounds. The market was uninspired by the news. A few weeks
earlier new crop had already been slated by a California exporter report at
1.96 billion. The Subjective seemed to confirm the outlook. Current crop got
a bump out of the new crop forecasts, but subsequently slipping back as
sellers emerged and buyers remained reticent.

http://www.skamberg.com/almonds.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that it is premature to make any conclusions regarding Cal Almonds-2013. As a commodity, almonds are subject of heavy "political/economical" games. It is absolutely not in the interest of almond producers to report decrease in the crop production. We will know the real situation next April, when supply will exhausted (hopefully not!)


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



TWall said:


> ... I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses. Tom


 Tom, I agree with you. As for "pre-varroa" I was trying to establish a threshold in attempt to determine what is "regular" lost without a varroa? As for varroa treatment, I read some very nice detailed report (sorry, no references - it is somewhere on beesource) comparing all our "tricks" against varroa including all chemicals, sugar powder, screened board etc. In my opinion, that report was very comprehensive and I do believe in it. They indicated that 
(1) In Southern-Western part of US, ANY treatment is not effective.
(2) in Northern-Eastern US part - only 2 chemicals (I forgot the names) are approximately 10% effective.
(3) that's it!

In this sense, best beekeeping practice approach, is sounded more effective than chemical treatment alone, which is no surprise, right?


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Almonds Update:
> 
> May 2013
> 
> The monthly shipment report was released.....


From the same article -

This is the exact same Subject Estimate as last May 2012, which was also at 
2.00 billion pounds, but 6 percent above last year's *actual production* of 
1.89 billion pounds.

Which is why the market was "uninspired".


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> In my opinion, that report was very comprehensive and I do believe in it. They indicated that
> (1) In Southern-Western part of US, ANY treatment is not effective.
> (2) in Northern-Eastern US part - only 2 chemicals (I forgot the names) are approximately 10% effective.


Skewed data. Surely you cannot believe it. It would only take one hive to be saved by treating for mites, to alter that claim. What's happening, is not all the right questions are being asked when the data is collected. First, most of the respondents are part timers. Their hives are doing well, so they don't treat. They see one with noticeable mites, they treat it. Problem being, by the time it's noticeable to them, the hive is probably past saving. Then there's all those treatments that are done, but not properly. 

How do I know this is going on? I am an inspector for my government and looking at other peoples hives I see it all the time.

That is why results will vary from one beekeeper to another, in the same area.

But if a survey was taken, those beekeepers with bees that did well and they felt no need to treat them, will put them down as untreated survivors. But the ones with hives that did get sick, and were finally treated but died anyway, are put down as treated hives that died.

When I'm inspecting, I'm constantly (daily) coming across dying hives, that when the beekeeper has finally noticed, has belatedly put some treatment into. The treatment is often not done right. I get paid to inspect, not do their beekeeping for them. But none the less, if they are there and ask me to, I will sometimes make a few little tweaks, that will save the hive, which would otherwise have perished.

It is not the beekeepers fault, they lack experience, and simply do the best they can. 

Other thing, I'll sometimes find a hive crawling with mites and in trouble. I tell the owner, and they say, can't have any mites, I just treated it. It will always turn out they 1. treated ineffectively, and 2. didn't check afterwards to see if it worked.

It's those kind of things skew surveys.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> ...This is the exact same Subject Estimate as last May 2012, which was also at 2.00 billion pounds, but 6 percent above last year's actual production of 1.89 billion pounds....


 Do I understand correctly that The Subjective Estimate overestimate for the year 2012 and now the article is concerns that it is again overestimated for 2013? My English is not good on such subject, sorry if I misunderstood.

Also, it looks like the increase related to increase of almonds acreage.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Very possible. Won't know till full & final data comes out.

I just posted what I did, as what you selected to quote made it appear the harvest was smaller. But reading your quoted article in it's wholeness showed the harvest was not smaller.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> Also, it looks like the increase related to increase of almonds acreage.


http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/news/agriculture/5836-california-almond-acreage-increases

Yes it appears bearing acreage increased by 20,000 meaning that the additional hive demand was probably in the 30 to 40,000 hive range. 
Bees clearly were a bit short this year, no doubt about it, but there clearly had to have been a lot of good hives out there to pick up the slack or they wouldn't be projecting a record crop.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Total production is useless. yield per acre is what you need to show.
Yeild per acre 2011, 2670 lbs. 2012 2560

In 2011 2.06 billion lbs of almonds where produced on 760,000 acres yet in 2012 only 1.98 billion lbs where produced even though ti was grow on 780,000 acres. 20,000 more acres required to keep the losses at only 80 million lbs.


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

To what extent does pollination, or the lack thereof, have to do w/ these yeild statistics?

No shortages in blueberries or other crops.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Ah - the beauty of numbers. And the way they can be selected to prove - whatever we want.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Ah - the beauty of numbers. And the way they can be selected to prove - whatever we want.



Such as you showing total production without mention of how many trees where needed to grow it? I in fact show lbs per acre. Just like dollars per hour. You cannot mislead with those comparisons. You then claim some sort of manipulation of numbers in hopes no one will sort at where the missleading is. You show only half a story believing that others will just make up the other half in agreement with your view. 1.98 billion lbs of almonds from 780,000 acres is in fact less almonds per acre than 2.03 billion lbs from 760,000 acres. can you see the manipulation in those numbers? Those are the numbers from 2012 and 2011.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

He may be right. It appears that it may only be the 2nd highest yield per acre of all time.


http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Fruits_and_Nuts/201305almpd.pdf

Yield per acre is, of course, important but given the fact that an almond cannot be set without a bee to pollinate the bloom, the total crop is a pretty good indication of the total bees pollinating and isn't that really what the discussion is about?


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Which has been on a steady climb since 1995 when yields where 800 and some per acre and 1400 lbs per acre was considered a good crop. This is attributed to better methods in growing trees. not honey bees. Again you use information to misslead.


----------



## BlueDiamond

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Cuts in irrigation water allocations, due, in part, to diversions to save a fish (delta smelt) is a big concern of almond growers south of Sacramento:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4109/5083870593_8dbea7eeb6_z.jpg
http://disturbedsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PHO-09Oct29-184673.jpg
http://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/110624-farm-drought-hmed-245a.grid-6x2.jpg


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Daniel Y said:


> Such as you showing total production without mention of how many trees where needed to grow it? I in fact show lbs per acre.


Daniel I in no way disputed the number of acres I have no problem with that. More acres, would need more bees, right? Adding to demand for bees? Right?

My quote from the article was to add critical missing information from the original quote, that gave a misleading impression on gross production. We all know there is more acres now, I'm not saying that's not true.

All credit to you for drawing attention to this though. But it doesn't show a shortage of bees, or a collapse of the almond industry. Not to say this will never happen, maybe it will. But this last crop? No.


----------



## Kamon A. Reynolds

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Every location has it's ups and downs. My area in TN is an awesome place for bees. Maybe not the best for high pollination contracts or extra large honey yields. But 90lbs a hive is common. No big agriculture and lots of bio diversity.


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> Skewed data. Surely you cannot believe it. ..


 It is very strange that being governmental employee you have no respect to statistical analysis and all other things commonly used in reseach and governmental reports. You just disregard everything. It looks like there is only one opinion on the earth - it is yours... I feel sorry for you - to live between idiots, who know nothing about anything. It should be tough...


----------



## cerezha

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> ...that gave a misleading impression on gross production. We all know there is more acres now, I'm not saying that's not true....


 There is no misleading information, because article was critical of the agency, who overestimate almonds in 2012 and they suspect it happens again in 2013.


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> I feel sorry for you - to live between idiots, who know nothing about anything. It should be tough...


Thanks for your kind thoughts Cerezha. 

Another bad day at the office or something?


----------



## mac

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



cerezha said:


> (1) neonics involved in high winterloss; (2) varroa caused the high winterloses.


 Michael Palmers bees may not collect corn pollen and are therefore not affected by Neonics it’s as simple as that. Nothing new here move along people


----------



## Oldtimer

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

My thoughts too.

However one of the arguments used by the want to ban neonics people, is that the dust generated at planting drifts onto other fields, and thereby still finds it's way into bee collected pollen via the plants growing in adjoining fields, causing the bees to die of CCD. So, MP's bees don't die of CCD in big numbers. Could this be because the crop growers in that area use good practise, or is the whole theory flawed. Could be either.

To me, there's a risk around any insecticide, and it's about doing what we can, with user cooperation of course, to keep bees exposure to minimum.


----------



## mac

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Oldtimer said:


> My thoughts too.
> 
> However one of the arguments used by the want to ban neonics people, is that the dust generated at planting drifts onto other fields, and thereby still finds it's way into bee collected pollen via the plants growing in adjoining fields,


 Well if the corn is round up ready there will be fewer weed flowers for the bees to come in contact with. Or maybeeeee his bees are Irish, ya know luck of the Irish as we sometimes say here in the states.


----------



## gmcharlie

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

The amount of weeds that bees use that roundup stops is tiny. most weeds compete only until the corn canopies... and never bloom the major weeds here in the midwest that comete in the corn, are not real bee forage items.. foxtail and grasses being the main ones.


----------



## Daniel Y

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

Assuming nics are a problem. Maybe the answer is the same as some believe the answer to Varroa is. Let the bees with resistance survive. At least in this case the problem is not able to develop along with the bee. It could be possible that those without losses near large fields of corn have only resistant bees.

I woudl still like to know why the lesser of all evils thought is even acceptable. why is any evil acceptable. Why should it not be the corn growers who's chosen crop cannot survive pay the price? I will grow a plant that is not entirely suitable to survive in this area at the expense of beekeepers. And exactly why is this agreeable to beekeepers? Because we should be so grateful they have not chosen to cause even greater damage? How about they grow corn where corn can grow without killing our bees. How about we decide our bees survival is more important than their corn production. I am not sure I see how their concerns for profit is greater than ours. So much so that they are allowed to make otherwise completely bee compatible environments and make them incompatible in the interest of their corn thriving. I say if you need pesticides to grow corn. you need to grow something else. I grew crops for 16 years and never used a chemical fertilizer, pesticide fungicide or even sewage to do so.


----------



## D Coates

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*

It's easy to play with other people's land, lives, and livelyhoods when it's not your own. Let's assume his crop (example corn) does fail as do the majority of the crops in the surounding states because of your "eradication of evil" plan. Prices go up dramatically and there are corn shortages in South and Central America. Tack on the same crop failure due to pests, drought, floods, etc in South and Central America and now the problem just got real serious.

They own the land and can grow whatever legal crop they want to on there however they legally want to. If they want to hold onto the land whatever they grow on there better turn a profit enough to pay all the bills, keep the family fed, and turn a profit on capital invested. It's not OUR land and I am grateful that they don't use outright bee deadly insecticides. Short of the powder released during planting there's no repeatable evidence that says neonics are the root of evil. You say you grew crops 16 years. Did you make your primary income off of them and why don't you do it anymore?

Decisions in life involve choosing the lesser of evils all the time.


----------



## BlueDiamond

*Re: The Australian Distraction Defense*



Daniel Y said:


> I say if you need pesticides to grow corn. you need to grow something else.


This is why Monsanto and Bayer do not put alot of effort into producing videos or documentaries to show the public why bees, frogs, pheasants and other wildlife thrive despite the pesticide use. They know alot of city folks watching the documentaries will think: "those bees, pheasants, frogs and other wildlife that can be found in neonic monocultures that look healthy are probably sick or will suffer genetic mutations, etc."


----------

