# Jon Entine debunks theory linking neonic pesticides to honeybee collapse



## drlonzo

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> Entine points out, for example, that in the period between 1995 (when neonics were introduced) and 2012, the overall number of beehives in the European Union actually increased. The same is true for the US and Canada.


This is the MAJOR flaw in this "data". These researchers that bring these statements forward put NO value on the fact that beekeepers that lost those hives in the beginning had to either buy packages to replace them or split exesting colonies to make up for losses and then at the end of the year when the forms get filed the beekeepers have a few more hives than prior to the deadouts to make up for the next year's losses. 

A person would think that someone as well educated as scientists are supposed to be would actually take the time to look at common sense side of things and realize that just because one year's numbers are a few more than the prior year's it doesn't mean that there is an "increase" but more so barely keeping up.

JMHO..


----------



## Dan P

I understood that CCD never existed ? The numbers went up.


----------



## Haraga

What are neonics?


----------



## sqkcrk

http://www.examiner.com/article/commercial-bees-spread-disease-to-wild-bees


----------



## Ian

Haraga said:


> What are neonics?


Lol

Beekeepers have become really good at making new or replacement hives. The bee business is more about building bees than ever before. 
What was said in that snip mskes no sense


----------



## sqkcrk

As Peter Borst has pointed out, the decline and increase has almost as much to do with economics as it does anything else. Not discounting that something caused CCD, just that upon demand colonies of bees have appeared to meet the demand of modern agriculture and the latest bee craze of new urban beekeepers.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

The only reason why colony numbers are rising in Europe is because the the European government comes with a lot of bureaucracy and they started to count hives in countries, where no counting took part before. More and more states take more and more on the beekeepers, so they are forced to tell them their numbers. In the past beekeeper did not report their hives counts to the state, but now they are more and more forced to do so.

In a country with a long beehive census history, lots of bureaucrats and nitpickers, lets say: Germany, there is no such a thing like an increase in hive counts. 

But even here they try to push the numbers up in the statistics by several tricks now. For example, it was only last year when they changed the time they do the census. In the past the number of hives had to be reported in April, when all hives were out of winter and happily flying. Where you know all the deadouts during winter. Now they shifted the census to December. To give you a figure: The winter losses right average now at 8-10 % of all hives. It is expected, that another 5-10 % die over the rest of the winter. Making it 15-20 % in total. (which is 100,000-140,000 dead hives in absolute numbers).

So never trust a statistic you didn't forge yourself.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

> More and more states take more and more on the beekeepers, so they are forced to tell them their numbers... but now they are more and more forced to do so.> The same im my country.
>So never trust a statistic you didn't forge yourself> Never??!!


----------



## sqkcrk

Statistics only have meaning over time. Statistics gathered in the same manner from the same sources over a matter of years can reveal trends. One statistical report has very little real meaning, other than that which those who wish to use it give it so.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

sqkcrk said:


> Statistics gathered in the same manner from the same sources over a matter of years can reveal trends.


Also my opinion Mark. If we change the accounting period, the statistics after this change can only be compared with future statistics (and the same for the others all parameters used).

With regard to the number of colonies I believe is/was taking place, in part, the effect that Bernhard says. The numbers in my country may be increasing, partly artificially, because beekeepers have to declare their hives to have some state aid. However as these obligations have come since 2007-2008, I believe that the current impact is much lower than it was at the beginning of implementation of these rules.

In these last 3 years there has been a large increase in the number of colonies in my country because many young people are being supported financially by my state for commencing professional operations (not my case that I do not have age to me apply for the aid of the state).


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Neonics are neonicotinoid insecticides. Almost every research paper I read is based on the researchers limited focus or knowledge. I just post the research. It does not mean I accept it. There is research in the lab now based on real science. Based on feeding bees pesticides, neonics, and fungicides all stages of life. I would not worry about the levels found in hives. I cannot share that until it is released though. I have already posted research demonstrating that bees avoid neonic tainted flowers and similar research.


----------



## sqkcrk

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Also my opinion Mark. If we change the accounting period, the statistics after this change can only be compared with future statistics (and the same for the others all parameters used).


Yes, that's how I see things too. Statistics to be of any value have to be collected continuously over a period of time, say decades, in the same manner. That being in the case we are discussing, the same time of year. Or collected at any time of year under the question being how many hives of bees did you have at a particular date of the year in question.


----------



## sqkcrk

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> Neonics are neonicotinoid insecticides.


I think the question was being asked in jest. In a mocking sort of way.


----------



## VitaminBee

I think hives have increased because of the increase in beekeeping. Lots and lots of new beekeepers.


----------



## Barry

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> There is research in the lab now based on real science. Based on feeding bees pesticides, neonics, and fungicides all stages of life.


Sorry, I can't help but cringe a little when the term "real science" is used. Kinda like using the word CCD.


----------



## Ian

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> I have already posted research demonstrating that bees avoid neonic tainted flowers and similar research.


Could you provide a couple quotes relaying their conclusion of their study?


----------



## drlonzo

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> I have already posted research demonstrating that bees avoid neonic tainted flowers and similar research.


If this is actually the case, then please explain how those plants are getting pollinated. Some by air, yes, but still others require insect pollination, and without it would not produce. 

So I say to that, still bad data. JMHO


----------



## irwin harlton

Entine has faced criticism for his alleged links to various corporate interests, though he denies these accusations.( wiki )


http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/02/atrazine-syngengta-tyrone-hayes-jon-entine

follow the money


----------



## jim lyon

drlonzo said:


> If this is actually the case, then please explain how those plants are getting pollinated. Some by air, yes, but still others require insect pollination, and without it would not produce.
> 
> So I say to that, still bad data. JMHO


Are there plants with neonic seed coatings that require insect pollination?


----------



## Michael Palmer

Oil Seed Rape? I know it's treated with a neonic, but don't know how. And, the bees certainly don't avoid the flowers.


----------



## jim lyon

Yes, it's certainly attractive to bees but I've never heard that it actually needs bee pollination. 
I would be interested in reading about any research proving bees avoid plants that grow from neonic treated seed. I hadn't heard that. Although in our area the list pretty much stops at corn and beans and it's a rare sight to find a bee working either of those crops.


----------



## apis maximus

jim lyon said:


> Are there plants with neonic seed coatings that require insect pollination?


They might not require insect pollination...but they are there, and the bees( pollinators we mostly talk about on this forum) will go get the pollen, and will take that pollen into the hive.

I was watching my bees loading up on corn pollen this past summer and taking it to the hives. Yes, corn planted with with neonic coated seed. 

No, the bees or the hives did not die, but I can't really say how helpful or detrimental to my hives that pollen was. And even if I was to guess, or speculate, the "thought police" would get in the action right away and point that I am only speculating.

If I was to maybe set up 10 nucs by the corn fields around my hives, and maybe do some measurements against 10 control nucs, the same "police" would argue that what I am doing is not really scientific, the n=10 is too low, or the statistics used are not used correctly...or god knows what ever else "canned" arguments they might have. 

And then, everybody gets in the act of "debunking"...:gh:

Cuz, we're all in this together...right? 
For those interested in our collective self delusion and hypocrisy on these issues, here is an interactive map, courtesy of your beloved, Uncle Sam, aka, .gov :
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/us...011&map=IMIDACLOPRID&hilo=L&disp=Imidacloprid

Spend sometime and play a bit with this map...Did I say it's interactive? Click on the "select another pesticide" button, and just choose from the long list, the "life giving, life enhancing", elixir of your choice. Then play with the time frame...the map only covers 1992-2011, but still, a clear trend is easy to observe. 
At the bottom of the page, note the crops these substances get applied to.
Don't just look at the *Imidacloprid*...because this one by now, it's all being "debunked". Right? I mean that's what "real scientists" are saying... 

But say, look at *Fipronil*, another oh so "innocent" yet so effective pesticide. Because, don't we all put it on our beloved pets, and none of us so far, has grown horns on our foreheads. So its all good. 

But Fipronil on corn? Maybe at the same time and application with say Imidacloprid? And maybe some Insect Growth Regulators for good measure...oh and some fungicides. Why not?

I am in NC, and according to this map, Fipronil was not used in NC until 2010. I agree, not as concentrated per acre as you brave folks over there in the corn belt get it, but still. And notice, its not just on corn...its also on fruits and vegetables. Oh, I don't know, all those fruits and veggies might be self pollinating, right? But I digress...

And we have not even scratched the surface on the concept of "synergy" amongst these wonderful creations. 

"Better lives through chemistry" as the cognoscenti would say...oh yeah baby, let's just get busy, feeding the world.


----------



## Charlie King

I wonder how much he was payed by bayer / Monsanto to publish this drivel.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Synergistic effects? Apis maximus you're delirious ... but you're not alone: you have Marla Spivack company and Mark Winston company, among others. Little thing! I Could bring data from a study in apiaries in Kenya, in which are found much less chemicals in the hives, and where the virus enhanced by the varroa seem to have a much smaller impact. But for what? Maybe are not typical hives... :gh:


----------



## apis maximus

Charlie King said:


> I wonder how much he was payed by bayer / Monsanto to publish this drivel.


C'mon Charlie...that's just conspiracy theory man...you can't be serious...Bayer has built us a mighty fine bee research facility here in beautiful Raleigh, where we are doing real science. OK? /sarcasm off

In the January 2015 issue of American Bee Journal, two Ph.D's from the Pesticide Research Institute, publish an interesting article under the heading " The Curious Beekeeper"...

The title, "Chemical Synergies: When 1 + 1 does not equal 2"

Very informative. The concept of detoxification mechanisms in bees and synergies amongst different classes of chemicals is very well explained. No pointing fingers, no direct accusations. Just biochemistry, chemistry, physiology and physics in action,

A very interesting paragraph, goes to say:

"*Pesticide manufacturers have explored the area of synergism in some detail in pursuit of more effective insecticides. A search of the US Patent Database revealed 56 patents for "active compound combinations", developed by Bayer alone, in which the synergistic effects of mixtures of pesticides on crop pests are described in detail. Through these patents, pesticides manufacturers have demonstrated " surprisingly effective" synergistic effects among several diverse groups of pesticides, including..*..:" 

Don't wanna spoil the suspense and anticipation of those true " Curios Beekeepers " that would like to enjoy, by themselves, the story in this article. 

So, y'all go read for yourselves...the rest of the story.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

jim lyon said:


> ...that it actually needs bee pollination.


I am working with oil seed rape farmers. Last year the difference with bees present is +15 %. Usually around +20 %. 

So while oil seed rape doesn't _need_ bee pollination, it certainly makes a positive difference. No farmer dispenses with the bees service and the extra 20 % harvest. You need 5 hives per 2.5 acres to achieve this, though.


----------



## apis maximus

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I am working with oil seed rape farmers. Last year the difference with bees present is +15 %. Usually around +20 %.
> 
> So while oil seed rape doesn't _need_ bee pollination, it certainly makes a positive difference. No farmer dispenses with the bees service and the extra 20 % harvest. You need 5 hives per 2.5 acres to achieve this, though.


Not only that, but according to some "conspiracy theorists" out there, you can actually reduce the total surface of the planted canola to about 75%, leaving the unplanted area to be taken over by some wild "weeds"/plants that would offer some other types of pollen, all throughout the season, not just to the bees...but say, for some other "native" pollinators...and at the end of the harvest you still get more canola than otherwise you would have gotten in the 100% cover, conventionally done way...

Being the skeptic that I am...I would say that Mark Winston must have somehow paid you to say all of this...There is no real scientific proof for all this non-sense. It's all anecdotal...Right? 
Only some "tree hugging", "emotionally unbalanced scientists"...more than likely Europeans, would say such things.../sarc off

Another interesting ( to me at least) point, is that some of these "self pollinating" crops, certainly do not "need" the bees to pollinate them, the bees *do need* the pollen to raise brood. They just can't do it otherwise.

Plants, in general, don't just "reward" bees with their sweet nectar...the bees actually "steal" the plants pollen too. Well, steal is figurative term, but really, they do. It only so happens that the plants themselves have so much pollen to give away, and still got plenty left to engage in reproduction themselves. Everybody wins so to speak....well, sort of.

So, you say..."You need 5 hives per 2.5 acres to achieve this, though"...
Using the stats from USDA, a back of the napkin math exercise , just for the USA alone....in 2014 there were 1,714,000 acres were planted with canola...http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics...DD&sector=CROPS&group=FIELD CROPS&comm=CANOLA

Lets say, 25% would be considered for varied reasons, crop loss. I don't know...But lets just use for easy math, 1 million acres. According to your figure, that would give 1 million acres canola, at 5 hives needed/employed for every 2,5 acres...how many hives would that be ? 
OK, not all that canola might yield nectar...I don't know, hives I've seen in canola fields are just filling up suppers like it's going out of style...
But, getting back to the question...how many hives would benefit from the arrangement you just described Bernhard?

Lets just let the real scientists answer that, for now.


----------



## Ian

Apis, do you have patties on those hives? If they are going for the corn, they must have nothing else... And corn is not very nutritious. 
Nutrient deficiency warning! Take it seriously


----------



## apis maximus

Good one Ian

Dully noted...and as they say around some parts of the world..."**** the torpedoes, full speed ahead"

Oh, and I did not even think about all that canola you folks up there have. 

Oceans of yellow, undulating fields on a deep, blue sky background...how poetic.


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

It was easier to find Randy Olivers quote of the neonic avoidance than my own. http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/
The study was by Dr. Axel Decourtye in France.


----------



## Dominic

Jon Entine is the epitome of the junk science he claims to criticize.


----------



## Ian

AmericasBeekeeper said:


> It was easier to find Randy Olivers quote of the neonic avoidance than my own. http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/
> The study was by Dr. Axel Decourtye in France.


"Foraging: “Although these studies showed the absence of effect of neonicotinoids on foraging of treated plants, perturbations of the foraging behavior on artificial feeder were revealed in other experiments. Thus, for example, it was found a quick decrease in the foraging activity in honey bee colonies at about 20 ppb of imidacloprid. This is probably due to the anti-feedant character of the compound.” This is a key point—bees appear to avoid nectar with high concentrations of neonicotinoids. Decourtye does mention that doses at the high end of field relevance may affect bee communication within the hive"

And... Are we getting 20 ppb of neonic in our canola nectar ?


----------



## Ian

apis maximus said:


> Dully noted...and as they say around some parts of the world..."**** the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
> 
> Oh, and I did not even think about all that canola you folks up there have.


Lol

The limiting factor on those yellow fields is moisture and heat. When those two factors line up, stack them boxes. The bees will plug up to two boxes per week!

.... Neonics will not even repel the bugs they are targeted three weeks past the treatment period,... Let alone bees two months later! Ha ha ha ha


----------



## NeilV

I heard a lecture at a bee club meeting from a scientist who has done research showing that bees actually keep foraging on syrup that is contaminated with neonics. The other point was that when that nectar gets turned into honey (which then would eaten during winter) the concentration of pesticides goes up due to the nectar losing moisture. The next stage in the research needs to be to analyze what effects the neonics have, if any, when in concentrations that would actually be found in stored honey. 

However, my question on this is whether neonics are really even in the nectar bees are collecting. What crops, other than squash and melons, would they get contaminated nectar from, and is there any correlation between hive deaths and putting hives near those crops? (Those are not rhetorical questions.)


----------



## apis maximus

NeilV said:


> (Those are not rhetorical questions.)


Very interesting points, and very good questions *NeilV*.

Yes indeed, those are not, and should not be, just rhetorical questions.

Would you mind bringing some of your own thoughts that might help lead the conversation forward? 

If we are talking about a SYSTEMIC application...not FOLIAR...although some of the FOLIAR applications end up being SYSTEMIC, how do we go about framing that discussion? 

Does SYNERGY of these products ( neonics in this case since you named them) come into play? *I* am all ears.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## NeilV

I don't have any answers, just questions. 

On one hand, it seems like all the pesticide companies have had to do is measure what field exposures kill bees. If a pesticide kills bees in the field and/or makes them too sick to recruit foragers, then it is more reasonable that dead bees is a viable measure. 

However, if the poison is in the nectar and sub-lethal doses don't even keep the bees from gathering the nectar, then there are a whole host of questions:

1. How much poison is in the nectar?

2. What's the concentration go up to in stored honey?

3. What are the lethal, sub-lethal, and synergistic effects (both with other chemicals bees are exposed to and pathogens) of the concentrations found in honey stored from contaminated nectar?

No idea as to those questions, although it does seem this has to be examined, given some pretty clear proof that the bees will keep collecting nectar that has sub-lethal (and expected) concentrations of nectar.

All I can add to my last post is that there are some other possible crops that get treated with neonics: canola and sunflowers. (However, I don't know whether those crops actually get treated with neonics.) 

What is clear is that merely saying "the LD50 of this poison well above what bees will get in nectar" is an insufficient way to evaluate the effects of the pesticide.


----------



## CanadaBeekeeper

Just a quick link for anyone interested in reading a review on Neonics and bees, to maybe help the conversation along:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338325/
The most important fact that jumps out to me is the lack of knowledge on the sub lethal effects of neonics on bees in the field (learning and behavioural effects) and how that may affect long term colony growth/health and pollen forager recruitment. In my opinion the lack of acute lethal effects may obscure some of the long term danger that using neonics may have as they are used in nearly every fruit crop.

And in my opinion one of the better studies showing the value of wild bee pollinators in agricultural systems (and the relation to landscape):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01418.x/full


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

Ian said:


> Apis, do you have patties on those hives? If they are going for the corn, they must have nothing else... And corn is not very nutritious.
> Nutrient deficiency warning! Take it seriously


I planted a stand of corn, about 400 of several types in a 400 sq. ft. area. My observation was that my bees didn't seem to be particularly attracted to it. Only a relatively small number visited the corn patch, other sources of pollen were apparently more to their liking.



> I wonder how much he was payed by bayer / Monsanto to publish this drivel.


As a member of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), I hear a lot about the big, bad, evil Monsanto (and 'GMOs') at the annual agricultural fair (colloquially known as the "Hippy Fair", at least locally, though the official name is The Common Ground Country Fair). Unfortunately, the biggest, loudest and most militant voices seem to belong to the least educated, and who have little or no training, knowledge or education in science and the scientific method. Of some I have heard who *do* have some education and proudly flaunt certain letters attached to their names as a mark of 'authority', that education is often NOT based in science, or or not based in the discipline in which they are trying to appear as experts. Some of the most radical of these people espouse socialist/communist values and openly admit to goals of eliminating private enterprise and private property ownership. Much of their shouting is nothing more than opinion, with little in the way of facts, data and science to back it up.


Fact:
Some time ago (2011 to be precise), Monsanto acquired Beeologics, originally an Israeli firm, that is "_...dedicated to restoring bee health and protecting the future of honey bee pollination. Beeologics’ mission is to become the guardian of bee health worldwide._"

Now why on earth would they do such a thing?

The logical answer is that it is in their best interests. Some crops currently depend on honeybees for pollination, and if farmers who depend on their products together with honeybees fail because those products kill the bees, they will lose customers. Their financial success depends a great deal on producing products that will make farmers successful, and who will then buy _more_ product.

Fact:
More than two hundred years ago a major bee die-off occurred (in England) during 1782-1783 (Edward Bevan, 1827), the description of which sounds remarkably similar to CCD. Monsanto was almost certainly not responsible for this event. It is also similarly unlikely to have been a result of 'Neonics' or any other mass pesticide application.

Is it possible that 'neonics' and other pesticides are unhealthy for bees and other living things? Absolutely. For that matter, even some of the so-called "organic" products that I use will kill bees, and their labels contain warnings on how to use them so as to avoid doing so.

Bee die-offs have occurred without Monsanto's assistance, to automatically link them, vilify them, try them in the court of public opinion without hard facts, data and science to prove it is, well, 'irresponsible' is the most polite thing I can call it.


----------



## D Coates

For many the anti-neonic agenda fervor has never been about scientifically repeatable "facts." Prove the direct causal relationship between neonic and bee die offs in a real world scientifically accepted and repeatable fashion and this is a dead story. That stuff would be yanked off the shelf and effective class action lawsuits would sprout like spring dandelions. 

If it turns out you can't you prove your claims; resort to innuendos, conspiracies and whatever else you can use to advance your agenda. The agenda being more important for many than scientifically repeatable findings is what should concern us all.


----------



## Charlie King

You guys are hilarious... Beeologics??? seriously?? A company bought out for 116 million dollars 4 years ago yet only have a skeleton webpage with 2 news entries since 2011... you're getting desperate!

Seems like it is you guys who have the political agenda and innuendo by insinuating anti-neonic supporters are nothing but uneducated extremist hippies... there are many gifted scientists and naturalists who have dedicated their entire life work to this subject, and their evidence is palpable. not to mention that Bees really are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pesticides and intensive agriculture. what about the soil micro culture? how are neonics and other pesticides affecting them? what about the birds? etc...

Your point about bee die offs is also flawed, unless you think bees can become resistant to neonics? oh wait, Monsanto can fix that... new improved round up ready bees!!


----------



## Ian

Give us the answers oh wise one


----------



## D Coates

Charlie King said:


> You guys are hilarious... Beeologics??? seriously?? A company bought out for 116 million dollars 4 years ago yet only have a skeleton webpage with 2 news entries since 2011... you're getting desperate!
> 
> Seems like it is you guys who have the political agenda and innuendo by insinuating anti-neonic supporters are nothing but uneducated extremist hippies... there are many gifted scientists and naturalists who have dedicated their entire life work to this subject, and their evidence is palpable. not to mention that Bees really are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pesticides and intensive agriculture. what about the soil micro culture? how are neonics and other pesticides affecting them? what about the birds? etc...
> 
> Your point about bee die offs is also flawed, unless you think bees can become resistant to neonics? oh wait, Monsanto can fix that... new improved round up ready bees!!


I'm all ears on proof of any of your claims. If it was so easy and obvious why are there no class action suits with any traction? In the US, it's still innocent until proven guilty. The only way to prove guilt is with scientifically accepted repeatable evidence in a court of law. It simply doesn't exist at this point. When this is lacking, like minded individuals try to change the publics perception (and hopefully actions!) with poorly (or un) supported innuendos, rumors and half truths. You can throw up the micro culture, birds, Peruvian bubble blowing apple snail, etc. (okay that last one is a joke) but it's only a delay tactic. There is no proof to this point. Find it (scientifically accepted and repeatable) and you'll have legs to stand on otherwise it's another "sky is falling" claim. There are so many Chicken little's pushing so many agendas that the most effective way to filter the Charlatan's out is demand proof. 

In short,... what Ian said.


----------



## Dominic

D Coates said:


> I'm all ears on proof of any of your claims. If it was so easy and obvious why are there no class action suits with any traction? In the US, it's still innocent until proven guilty. The only way to prove guilt is with scientifically accepted repeatable evidence in a court of law. It simply doesn't exist at this point. When this is lacking, like minded individuals try to change the publics perception (and hopefully actions!) with poorly (or un) supported innuendos, rumors and half truths. You can throw up the micro culture, birds, Peruvian bubble blowing apple snail, etc. (okay that last one is a joke) but it's only a delay tactic. There is no proof to this point. Find it (scientifically accepted and repeatable) and you'll have legs to stand on otherwise it's another "sky is falling" claim. There are so many Chicken little's pushing so many agendas that the most effective way to filter the Charlatan's out is demand proof.
> 
> In short,... what Ian said.


http://www.tfsp.info/worldwide-integrated-assessment/


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

Charlie King said:


> You guys are hilarious... Beeologics??? seriously?? A company bought out for 116 million dollars 4 years ago yet only have a skeleton webpage with 2 news entries since 2011... you're getting desperate!


And that proves...what?



Charlie King said:


> Seems like it is you guys who have the political agenda and innuendo by *insinuating anti-neonic supporters are nothing but uneducated extremist hippies*


I don't recall making such a blanket statement...let me go back and check...nope, didn't. Why do you seem to be taking it so personally? You seem to be trying to make it sound like I have a problem with 'hippies', which I don't....why would I? In the event that your reading comprehension has failed you, let me point out the fact that (as I stated) I, too, am a member of MOFGA, and attend the "Hippy Fair"...and you can't see it, but I also sport a beard and let my hair get a little longish at times. What I have a problem with, is innuendo and opinion without facts to back it up. Shouting it louder doesn't make it any truer. If something were hurting my bees, I would certainly want to know about it so I could take steps to resolve the issue. But, trying to solve a 'problem', without any evidence that it _is_ a problem, is at best a waste of my time.



Charlie King said:


> ... there are many gifted scientists and naturalists who have dedicated their entire life work to this subject, and their evidence is palpable. not to mention that Bees really are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pesticides and intensive agriculture. *what about the soil micro culture?*


What about it? And what does it have to do with my bees?



Charlie King said:


> how are neonics...affecting them?


How _are_ they 'affecting them'. Are they?



Charlie King said:


> what about the birds? etc...


What about the birds. Why are you bringing them into it?




Charlie King said:


> Your point about bee die offs is also flawed, unless you think bees can become resistant to neonics? oh wait, Monsanto can fix that... new improved round up ready bees!!


Really? Flawed? I thought my point was rather simple, really- that bee die-offs have occurred without Monsanto or neonics. I don't see how anyone who is reasonably rational can call that 'flawed'. Perhaps it is the logic that follows that escapes you- that if bee die-offs occur can *without* Monsanto or neonics, then if other bee die-offs occur, evidence must be presented to prove that it _was_, in fact, Monsanto/neonics rather than some other cause that it _could_ have been.

If you find a dead body, and there is a hammer nearby, you can't just say "The hammer did it." The body has to be examined. Maybe a knife or a gun did it. Maybe he died of natural causes. You have to conduct an investigation and find the true cause, rather than just pointing a finger at the nearest _possible_ cause.


----------



## Eduardo Gomes

Does the acaricides residues left inside the hive (fluvalinate and coumaphos , eg .) have not been convicted before trial? 

"In stark contrast, low risks were determined for three acaricides used in apiaries to control mites, tau-fluvalinate (0.3–1%), coumaphos (0.3–0.4%) and chlorfenvinphos (0.05–0.2%), even if their residues loads (36–128 ppb) are above the 60 ppb average and appear in pollen with a frequency of 12 to 32% ([26], Table S1). All of them present little risk to the bees because their toxicities by contact are low (4, 8 and 20 ng bee−1). They may be of concern, however, when present in high concentrations, and it is only then that they can reach the topical LD50 in 2 to 4 days (Table 2). […] Not considered here is the synergism of chlorothalonil with fluvalinate and coumpahos (which only occurs at high concentrations of fluvalinate), because the presence of coumaphos significantly reduces the toxicity of the fluvalinate and chlorothalonil mixture [40]. " 

Please see here: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094482#pone-0094482-g002

About Apivar and his residues in honey I think it is appropriate to add this link: http://projectapism.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Final-Report_Pettis-341.pdf


----------



## Ian

Eduardo Gomes said:


> Does the acaricides residues left inside the hive (fluvalinate and coumaphos , eg .) have not been convicted before trial?


Amitraz residues in the hive apperently increase the toxicity of other incoming toxins.

<a href="http://stepplerfarms.com/Honeyblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IMG_3228.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-4099" src="http://stepplerfarms.com/Honeyblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IMG_3228.jpg" alt="IMG_3228" width="425" height="318" data-id="4099" /></a>

"amitraz increased the toxicity of imidacloprid to mosquito larvae nearly twentyfold! Again, OH…MY…GOSH! Could beekeepers be making all the careful calibration of neonicotinoid levels in the registration of agricultural products moot by introducing a chemical synergist into their hives that might make said neonics twenty times more toxic to their bees? Was it the neonics, or was it what the beekeeper put into the hive"


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

Ian said:


> Was it the neonics, or was it what the beekeeper put into the hive"


I think that anytime man interferes with natural processes, he runs the risk of unintended (and perhaps unforseeable) consequences. This has been shown even when the interference is accomplished using "natural" means, by introducing a species to a place where it is not normally found. I try to go as natural as possible to minimize the risks, but sometimes there is no choice and there must be some interference in order to obtain a desired result. The trick is to balance the possible risks against the potential reward.


----------



## apis maximus

Charlie King said:


> You guys are hilarious...
> 
> .. there are many gifted scientists and naturalists who have dedicated their entire life work to this subject, and their evidence is palpable. not to mention that Bees really are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pesticides and intensive agriculture. what about the soil micro culture? how are neonics and other pesticides affecting them? what about the birds? etc...
> 
> Your point about bee die offs is also flawed, unless you think bees can become resistant to neonics? oh wait, Monsanto can fix that... new improved round up ready bees!!


C'mon Charlie...that sounds really conspiratorial man. /Sarc off
Gifted scientists? No doubt...Sounds Greek to me. Obviously, to many, many, others too.
And as the fine folks of Troy said long, long, long time ago, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts", it applies today as well. To a T.
The only question is, who's the all gifted, the all giver, and who is on the receiving end ? Don't answer that. Rhetorical on my part.

Amazing what very, very, very cold nights can accomplish.

Y'all stay warm. And while you do, pray and hope that your mighty bees come out and fly. Maybe. Soon. 
If not, they'll be just Popsicles.


----------



## apis maximus

Ian said:


> Give us the answers oh wise one


You just answered that wish. See how easy that was?
I know...I'm t: My bad.


----------



## apis maximus

BadBeeKeeper said:


> And that proves...what?
> 
> You seem to be trying to make it sound like I have a problem with 'hippies', which I don't....why would I? In the event that your reading comprehension has failed you, let me point out the fact that


BadBeeKeeper. Why the *Bad* in the name? What's bad about it? Bees in ME is bad? Neonics in ME is bad? Neonics and other combos doing some miraculous synergies, saving crops while repelling bees ? 
For their own good of course. Could you elaborate a bit please? 



BadBeeKeeper said:


> The trick is to balance the possible risks against the potential reward.


What trick is that? Bees got not tricks. We do. The beekeepers. We are the slow ones to learn.And the more tricks we pull out of our collective hats, the more we fight to prove who's right and who's wrong.
Bees are very patient. Even when they die. Even when they are cold, and getting colder. No tricks. All out in the open. What you see it's what you get.



BadBeeKeeper said:


> What I have a problem with, is innuendo and opinion without facts to back it up. Shouting it louder doesn't make it any truer. If something were hurting my bees, I would certainly want to know about it so I could take steps to resolve the issue. But, trying to solve a 'problem', without any evidence that it _is_ a problem, is at best a waste of my time.


So, it's OK to call Charlie the King on the mat for reading comprehension. No innuendo, no ad hominem, none of that. Straight shooter. Right?

In post # 26 on this very thread, on topic I might add, I brought up the issue of synergism. Would you care to comment and maybe share on that? Your own thoughts I mean. 
Empiricism, science and all that is good. Very good. It's all debunked. And then some. 
Don't bother posting links to studies. Got plenty of them in my bucket. Your thoughts only, would do great. This is a great audience that truly enjoys a good conversation. On point, to the point of course. 

_Habeas corpus_, yes, cool concept, but really?

You say, in reply to Charlie's point...Soil Micro culture..."What about it? And what does it have to do with my bees?" 

A: Not directly with your bees. Clearly. Your bees are just out of this interconnected world. And that's cool. Not bad, not good. Just different.
Stay warm up there in ME. Nice cool, 18 F as we exchange great ideas on this fine platform called Bee Source. Nice and toasty inside. same in healthy, strong hives. Might wanna go talk to yours. I just got back from mine. 
They said to tell yours hello and keep warm. Bees are so gracious.


----------



## jonathan

jim lyon said:


> Yes, it's certainly attractive to bees but I've never heard that it actually needs bee pollination.


Not strictly necessary but the yield goes up about 15% with bee pollination apparently.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper

apis maximus said:


> BadBeeKeeper. Why the *Bad* in the name? What's bad about it? Bees in ME is bad? Neonics in ME is bad? Neonics and other combos doing some miraculous synergies, saving crops while repelling bees ?
> For their own good of course. Could you elaborate a bit please?


There are several connotations inherent in my choice of nick, any of which might be apropos at any given time. Some of the explanations are in my "introductory" post, which I never posted. That was bad of me. I recently read Bill Turnbull's "Confessions Of A Bad Beekeeper" and I realized that I am a bad beekeeper too, very bad indeed. I've also been known to keep bad bees- it wasn't their fault, I killed a bunch of them and they got very irate, and it was a long time before got over it. It was my fault and they were just doing what comes naturally, so I just let them be until they settled down. Usually, when my bees do bad things, it's because I did something bad...like forgetting to turn the inner cover over in the Spring, which makes them want to fill it with honey-filled burr comb.



apis maximus said:


> What trick is that? Bees got not tricks. We do. The beekeepers. We are the slow ones to learn.And the more tricks we pull out of our collective hats, the more we fight to prove who's right and who's wrong.
> Bees are very patient. Even when they die. Even when they are cold, and getting colder. No tricks. All out in the open. What you see it's what you get.


Not trick bees. The trick is in what we do, as humans, interfering with nature to try and make it do what _we_ want it to do, without disastrous unintended consequences. But, surely, someone as loquaciously erudite as yourself did not fail to comprehend my meaning.



apis maximus said:


> So, it's OK to call Charlie the King on the mat for reading comprehension. No innuendo, no ad hominem, none of that. Straight shooter. Right?


Of course not. A lack of comprehension on someone else's part, could be indicative of a failure in communication on my part. Sometimes I fail to put things in terms that facilitate easy comprehension. Sometimes. (Shoot, now you've got me doing it.) Sometimes, a bit of innuendo, or sarcasm or other plays on words can have amusing results. I'm not above using it, even on myself, hence my nick.



apis maximus said:


> In post # 26 on this very thread, on topic I might add, I brought up the issue of synergism. Would you care to comment and maybe share on that? Your own thoughts I mean. Empiricism, science and all that is good. Very good. It's all debunked. And then some. Don't bother posting links to studies. Got plenty of them in my bucket. Your thoughts only, would do great. This is a great audience that truly enjoys a good conversation. On point, to the point of course.


No, I wouldn't care to comment. Trying to read your writing style often results in dissonance in my brain. Consequently, I usually tend to skip your posts, or only lightly skim over them. Unfortunately, this means that I really cannot recall your post #26. Leaving me without the ability to comment on it. Since I don't remember it. And don't wish to bother going back to look at it. Again. (Shoot. I'm doing it. Again. I mean, writing like you do. Stop that. I have to stay away from you, I think it's rubbing off.)



apis maximus said:


> _Habeas corpus_, yes, cool concept, but really?


Apparently, you misunderstand the concept of Habeas Corpus, which would seem to be somewhat incongruous with your apparent penchant for Latin. "Habeas corpus", roughly translated from the Latin, means "you have the body". A _writ of habeas corpus_ is an order from a court or judge to produce a prisoner who is [potentially] being held unlawfully.

As to what we are discussing, we are already in possession of the body, and considering the necessity of an appropriate _post mortem_ examination to determine the _actual_ cause which has rendered that body defunct.



apis maximus said:


> You say, in reply to Charlie's point...Soil Micro culture..."What about it? And what does it have to do with my bees?"
> 
> A: Not directly with your bees. Clearly. Your bees are just out of this interconnected world. And that's cool. Not bad, not good. Just different.
> Stay warm up there in ME. Nice cool, 18 F as we exchange great ideas on this fine platform called Bee Source. Nice and toasty inside. same in healthy, strong hives. Might wanna go talk to yours. I just got back from mine.
> They said to tell yours hello and keep warm. Bees are so gracious.


Unfortunately, some of my bees seem to be in a condition which necessitates a _post mortem_ examination. However, those surviving say "hello" in return.

LOL. Are we having fun yet?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Well, not sure about _all _of "we", but *I *certainly am having fun! 



... perhaps even my bees are amused ...


----------



## jim lyon

jonathan said:


> Not strictly necessary but the yield goes up about 15% with bee pollination apparently.


You may be correct. Over here there is such competition over good canola locations it would probably require netting some to find out. Perhaps it's been done? 
I'd continue discussion on this thread but I'm going to stay away until I gain some understanding of exactly what is being discussed, my Latin is a bit rusty.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> I'd continue discussion on this thread but I'm going to stay away until I gain some understanding of exactly what is being discussed, my Latin is a bit rusty.


Jim, in the cattle business they call it 'a bunch of bull'


----------



## AmericasBeekeeper

Some other points to consider --
Australia, the only continent on the planet without Varroa mite, has steady bee populations, producing vast quantities of honey, with steady exposure to neonics
Canadian honey bee populations are on the rise, particularly in the canola fields of the west where neonics are regularly used
Neonics are only used in 70 of 155 countries, pollinators are dying in most countries, and varroa exists in most countries.
"real science" refers to exposing the bee to the neonics, measuring the survival rate, and not just listening to the news and Internet jabber and believing the Kool-Aid s good.


----------



## BHMack

> In a masterful example of thorough scientific reporting, Jon Entine makes it clear that the recent accusations......


I don't know. I have a hard time taking anything seriously that uses the word 'debunk' in a scientific context and begins with this sort of cheerleading.........

Though I'm not sure the detriment neonics cause honeybees, I'm pretty sure the honeybee is the proverbial canary in the coalmine here.....


----------



## BHMack

drlonzo said:


> A person would think that someone as well educated as scientists are supposed to be would actually take the time to look at common sense side of things and realize that just because one year's numbers are a few more than the prior year's it doesn't mean that there is an "increase" but more so barely keeping up.
> 
> JMHO..


It was those same 'scientists' that finally came around to concluding the Black Death and the collapse of the Incan civilization etal were caused by the inability of native species to adapt to the pathogens carried by invasive species and vise-versa and yet they can't seem to see any harm in moving bees all across the country and the world year after year.......all the while the EPA will continue to allow chemical companies to deploy _then_ test chemicals.....round and round we go. Species dwindle, folks get sick, Monsanto, Bayer, etal pump out more chemicals designed to kill this or that.....and still no light goes off.......I'm no hater but the use of a little 'common sense' would tell us a lot about what's wrong with a lot of what we see around us....particularly among the bees.



> What I have a problem with, is innuendo and opinion without facts to back it up.


I've rarely met a _fact_ that wasn't bought and paid for by someone with an agenda.

Einstein explained _facts_ pretty well. It is not a _fact_ that the sky is blue. The sky _appears_ to be blue to the _majority_ of observers. That's a fact. Monocrop deserts, insecticides that mammals metabolize into toxins, and invasive species are bad to the status quo. Another fact. There is rarely a direct cause and effect in nature. It's usually the 'sum of all fears' that cause collapse, as we see with the bees and other pollinators.....


----------



## Redneck

I would like to see the results of a study of neonic seed coatings done by scientists and universities that did not accept any grants (free money) from chemical companies. Never believe for a minute that enough money will not influence the results of these studies. When our food supply starts to dwindle away because of lack of pollination, then maybe the American people will wake up.


----------



## jonathan

There are plenty of those studies if you take the time to go look for them. Some but not all of the studies are part funded from industry sources.


----------

