# Is CCD Dead?



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I recently attended a beekeeping conference where Dr Pettis stated that N.ceranae has been found in US bee samples as far back as 1985 and recently read in the November ABJ that the Israelis have developed what amounts to a vaccination (Remebee) for IAPV, a virus frequently associated with CCD. The same technology is potentially applicable for other bee viruses.

This makes me wonder out loud...perhaps if we can cure viral infections in our bees and N. ceranae is really nothing that new, perhaps we have seen or will soon see the end of CCD? With viruses, mites and Nosema fully in check, maybe the "sub lethal" negative impacts of neo-nics and other pesticides will be better tolerated by our bees if proper nutrition is provided?

Who's ready to bet the farm?


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

your farm...maybe.

my farm... definitely not.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

*there is no PUBLISHED Scientific evidence*

that points to CCD being a widespread, random pathogen or transferable disorder. 

CCD surveys from spring of 2008 indicated it was primarily the same bunch of migratory beekeepers who had CCD two years in a row. 

common sense suggests "operator" error or practices unique to those beekeepers. 

the whole CCD story was and is vastly overblown. the so called CCD map that was lit up with most states having CCD is very misleading. All it would take is 2 or 3 beekeepers filling out a survey and self diagnosing CCD and boom-o the map indicated CCD in the state. furthermore many migratory beekeepers indicated their home state address even though their collapses occurred in CA or the south after honey season. 

I challenge anyone to provide a link either to a government or university researcher outside the USA that went on the record stating they had verified and documented CCD cases in their country. 

But yet the media and sites like this propagate the idea that CCD is everywhere and killing bees left and right all over the world. 

what we do have though is plenty of factual evidence ( from Maryann Frazier) that most brood comb in commercial operations is heavily contaminated with couamphous or fluvalinate. add to this data, research like

L. M Burley "The Effects of Miticides on Reproductive Physiology of Honey Bee Queens and Drones Aug 2007 Virginia Tech

and there is no mystery, just beekeeper denial and sensationalism. I think many large outfits who went to Congress to testify were hoping for some kind of big hand out. seems like Washington and USDA saw through the smoke screen. 

its utterly shameful that the AFB board is full of brood comb contaminators who happily "lead" the commercial beekeeping industry along Chemical Lane operating under 2 decades old Section 18 Emergency Labels for these poisons. They seek to distort their own complicity in killing off their own bees by offering up the Bayer Kool Aid to tree huggers, the media and other contaminators. The Bayer story and CCD is a dead end. Countless studies and years now have passed and we have nothing except the fact that most brood comb is unfit for healthy and reproductive honeybee colonies. Need we look any further? 

CCD was mostly hype to cover up a vast misuse and abuse of miticides, ands no one wants to accept the facts offered up in the M Frazier research. We have the answers to more healthy bees but its not the silver bullet the commercial industry wants to accept. 

I expect the legal and illegal self contamination of hives will continue, as will the heavy losses that come from the unnatural high concentrations of colonies found in CA holding yards. This feedlotting of colonies prior to almonds is ruining the industry. We foolishly are spending research dollars to research why bees are sick when kept on self contaminated comb and kept in very high concentrations. 

Remember in the wild, honeybee colonies were found roughly 1/2 mile apart. Not 10,000-50,000 colonies per couple thousand acres.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Bud Dingler said:


> as will the heavy losses that come from the unnatural high concentrations of colonies found in CA holding yards. This feedlotting of colonies prior to almonds is ruining the industry. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Really,
> ...


----------



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

*Keith*

Lay down and put your head directly in front of the duals. That way the lights will go out quickly.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom G. Laury said:


> Lay down and put your head directly in front of the duals. That way the lights will go out quickly.


That that problem, with CCD the lights were never on.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Bud, while I would not argue that there is beekeeper contamination of comb there is also comb contamination from pollen brought in from pollinated crops. There are also responsible successful beekeepers who have had higher than usual losses. I don't think it is fair to suggest that CCD is not real or solely beekeeper caused. Both Nosema and viruses could be characterized as " widespread, random pathogen(s) or transferable disorder(s)." I suspect CCD will turn out to be a syndrome that will include mites, Nosema, viruses, nutrition, and plenty of "sub lethal" pesticide residues; essentially too many straws on the camels back.

I thought the information I originally posted about was very exciting. Think about it, we may be on the verge of the equivalent of a flu vaccine or a polio cure for bees. We have never had much we could do for viruses in the past. Bees do have pathogenic virus and there is plenty of data to support that fact. That coupled with the new information about N. cerana present in the US since 1985 should be encouraging.

Don't get me wrong, I do firmly believe our best and first line of defense for most bee diseases and pathogens should be genetics, not chemistry. Mite tolerance and Nosema resistance have been documented (see Steve Shepard's and Randy Oliver's articles in the November BC). The trick will be to establish these desirable genetics without losing too many bees and beekeepers. The US managed bee population peaked in 1948 and the numbers of beekeepers and hives have steadily declined since. Maybe we should call this trend ACD (apiculture collapse disorder).


----------



## tecumseh (Apr 26, 2005)

jbj writes:
Bees do have pathogenic virus and there is plenty of data to support that fact.

and then..

Maybe we should call this trend ACD (apiculture collapse disorder).

tecumseh:
curious how quickly the folks in Washington jumped on the financial meltdown but when CCD was talk of the town you would have though that 'the decider' folk had decades to make a decision. are sample still setting in the usda lab unprocessed (as they were several month back) with no processing date in site due to no funding of the lab???? seems to me some folks think BASIC RESEARCH is a non essential.

I do suspect john that you are seeing the appropriate trend in agriculture.... quite literally we are drowning in our own toxins and waste products. no one of any authority dare say a thing, since doing so might cause some greed head to lose a billion dollars... and we can't have that, now can we? and believe me (been there, done that)... get in the way of the big boy's money are you are quickly going to be toast brother. 

by casual review (of some old literature) I suspect that the viral aspect of ccd has been around for quite some time (likely first witnessed as far back as the turn of the prior century or approximately 1900). add to this that virus are just as likely to mutate and alter it's form as is the varroa and even in the short run it sounds like another over priced chemical solution that will quickly become a tread mill. in this process you add another feather to an all ready overburded mule and what do you thing will happen?

for myself....I have always (from the first report of ccd) thought some common bee keeping practice that would be a link in the ccd chain. almost from the very first report of ccd... the older product commonly used for afb (terramycin) was suggested over a newer product (tylan). later it was suggested that terramycin somehow masked another problem (nosema). this latter disease also seemed to be a quite prevalent clue in the search for the real ccd.

in the end... given the chemical soup many hives are sitting in, is it any wonder that problems are not more frequent? blaming other beekeepers may make some here feel like superior beekeepers in the very short term. I quess they can continue to feel this way (over some time horizong) until the wind shifts in their direction and they then become 'just another victim'.


----------



## MichaelW (Jun 1, 2005)

Bud Dingler said:


> L. M Burley "The Effects of Miticides on Reproductive Physiology of Honey Bee Queens and Drones Aug 2007 Virginia Tech


looks interesting, thanks.
Link, 
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-08162007-092313/unrestricted/lmburley.pdf


----------



## MadBowbee (Oct 10, 2006)

I have a bigger almond grower/new beekeeper friend, as he bought an outfit out 2 years ago, that reported he had CCD. For sure, I know that it was a mite problem. I agree with the fellow from Michigan, some of this reporting of CCD in all these states is a little off. But don't tell my friend Brett Adee that after their big losses last year. But I did never hear him come out and say he had CCD, just a new strain of the Kashmir bee virus. But he didn't stand up and call all the media he could get a hold of either, (which I would have not done too, embarrasment and bad image for your growers) he took care of things quietly. I guess there is two different ways of doing things. The Hackenberg way has gotten some great publicity out there for us and $$$, but I guess there are plus and minuses both ways.


----------



## PCM (Sep 18, 2007)

Might want to check this link out about your friend Adee Farms;

http://www.beesource.com/news/article/adeefined.htm :no:

PCM


----------



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

*Ccd*

On three different occasions, three different years, I have spent weeks helping beekeepers sort through thousands of dead colonies, consolidating what was left so that they could be rented out for pollination. I have myself at times lost inordinate percentages of my own colonies. In each case, the source of losses was pretty easy to identify. Varroa, left unchecked, will peak in autumn and devastate the bees needed for overwintering. When supers are left on through August, pulled late, then extracting, suddenly it's mid September. Too late. Ineffective treatments applied without monitoring, assumed to be working, suddenly it's too late. Neglect due to procrastination, lack of time or labor force, it's too late. With all the info and experience available, it still happens surprisingly often. This past Saturday I went out with a bee neighbor ( 1500 colonies ) to look at his bees...They're down to three frames or less, crawling, stick wings, KNOWING is not the same as DOING. 

I am not going to dispute that it is more and more difficult to maintain counts or that insecticides damage bees or even that CCD may exist but strictly speaking from my own experience, beekeeping is much like farming in that it consists mainly of doing the RIGHT THING at the RIGHT TIME.

PPB is real ( *iss poor beekeeping )

LTPB is real ( Less than perfect beekeeping )

With these high pollination fees, CIS is real ( Colony inspection syndrome )

Again, I'm not disputing anyone elses experiences opinions or knowledge, just describing what I have seen.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JBJ said:


> Bud, while I would not argue that there is beekeeper contamination of comb there is also comb contamination from pollen brought in from pollinated crops.


yet...even in TRAPPED POLLEN (that has never seen the inside of a hive), it is the fluvalinate and coumaphos that are at the highest levels (probably being contaminated by the honey/nectar that the bees take from the hive with which to stick the pollen grains together). so, although there are doubtless pesticides coming in from the field, it would be hard to even begin to estimate their impact without first eliminating the beekeeper applied chemicals....and it's important to note that the data thus far shows that the beekeeper applied stuff is in much higher concentrations and distribution than anything applied to crops, lawns, etc.

the above should also make one wonder, "does this mean that fluvalinate and coumaphos are in honey?"...the answer is that the nhb thought it appropriate to fund for the testing of comb, foundation, trappped pollen, stored pollen (beebread), adult bees, brood...but not honey. these are the same folks who classified the "bee movie" as an educational film, and spent (if i remember correctly) 1 million beekeeper dollars to co-promote the film. the answer to the above question is "probably" based on what we know. shame on the nhb for what they have done here.



> I thought the information I originally posted about was very exciting. Think about it, we may be on the verge of the equivalent of a flu vaccine or a polio cure for bees. We have never had much we could do for viruses in the past. Bees do have pathogenic virus and there is plenty of data to support that fact.


yes it is true that there are pathogenic viruses.....some of them are present in almost all honey bee colonies. as we do our research into the role of microbes in the hive, a few things have become clear.

1. aside from a very few researchers (martha gilliam being one), almost no one has really looked at microbes as being anything but pathonogenic. we now know (in humans and in bees) that there are many microbes that are tightly integrated into the proper functioning of the hive. this includes yeasts, bacteria, fungi, molds, etc. imho, it would be too big of an assuption to make that viruses are only pathonogenic, and never beneficial. many of the microbes mentioned above have both beneficial and pathongenic properties...many of them keep others in check. this is too complex a system to willy nilly eliminate components on the assumption that they serve no useful (or important) purpose in the hive.

2. the preliminary data from dee lusby's "ccd hives" sampled last year (samples taken by dr. loper, and given to dr. bromenshenk) were (according to dr. bromenshenk) "remarkably free of viruses". this of course may be evidence against my point above wrt viruses perhaps being necessary...but it also may be evidence that in an untreated system, that viruses are less present than they are in treated operations. ...that the high incidence of viruses that we do see are a result of long term treatments...and that adding more and more to this chemical soup is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.



> That coupled with the new information about N. cerana present in the US since 1985 should be encouraging.


let's be specific...this data came from frozen samples from maine in 1985...and 30% of the bees in those samples had nosema c. present. i find this encouraging in that it is clearly not "new" here, and any widespread collapse due to nosema c. is not simply due to the presence of nosema c., but due to other factors.



> Don't get me wrong, I do firmly believe our best and first line of defense for most bee diseases and pathogens should be genetics, not chemistry. Mite tolerance and Nosema resistance have been documented (see Steve Shepard's and Randy Oliver's articles in the November BC). The trick will be to establish these desirable genetics without losing too many bees and beekeepers.


can anyone cite a successful breeding program for any organism that doesn't/hasn't culled from the broader population heavily? i don't think what you propose above is feasable...we can't both breed for desirable genetics _and_ not cull the susceptable. yes, there are things one can do with requeening...but see randy quinn's talk from the 2008 organic beekeeping confernece (available on our website for free...and it's not a very long talk). the selection of breeding stock, and the act of requeening (with mated queens especially) shrink the available gene pool faster than one can imagine. this is the opposite of what we should be doing.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

We could debate ad nauseam about what CCD is and where to point the fingers, but in my humble opinion we need even more attention and focus on apiculture. The downward trend line since 1948 in the numbers of managed hives and beekeepers has to plateau at some point or our food systems could be in real trouble.

Comb residues and operational costs could dramatically be decreased with a genetic basis of mite tolerance and Nosema resistance. Also, with a potential remedy for viruses (probably less of a problem with Varroa tolerance) on the way, we may be on the verge of a new era in beekeeping as long as we appropriately act on what we do know, otherwise the Great Cull (ACD) continues.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Deknow, you raise some interesting points...I did not see the second page when I wrote my last post. Clearly we can not make the transition to more sustainable beekeeping without culling the most susceptible bees and beekeepers. Could it be possible to make these transitions and maintain a respectable pollination population? Lets hope so.

As to your point about probiotics; there have been several interesting discussions about this on beesource. I have long advocated that we need to look at the intestinal flora of thriving untreated hives to compare with collapsing treated hives.

My point about Nosema being around since 1985 was just meant to be informative and to suggest that we may have some pockets of bees that already tolerate this fungus well.

Hey KJ, on a side note, if the wheels fall off the beekeeping bus, does it mean that you will not be so level headed (provided the bus is on flat ground of course)?


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

JBJ said:


> Hey KJ, on a side note, if the wheels fall off the beekeeping bus, does it mean that you will not be so level headed (provided the bus is on flat ground of course)?


Hey John,

If all the wheels fall off the beekeeping bus.... It's because they never did much "PM" program.

Hey the bees look at this time GOOD, BUT, this week the cool weather comes & have my FORMIC ready to go & last pollen patty with NOZEVIT added just in case we get a flat tire.


----------



## MadBowbee (Oct 10, 2006)

PCM, that link is to some really old news that shows you must not be aware of what really is going on. All commericial beekeepers I know, oh lets say 250,000 hives worth are using and have been for a long time "other" mite treatments like Adee's were fined for. I know what your going to say, go to survivor stock and let 3/4 of your hives die....oh yeah, that would also have a huge direct impact on the food supply and those growers are just going to find all the hives they need from the small sideliners and hobbyists that don't move there hives more than 50 miles a year. (where is an icon that is using a different finger)

CCD as a term is fine, it's bringing awareness and muched needed money to research. I just don't think what everyone says CCD is the real thing. I agree with whoever said PPB (piss poor beekeeping) is real. But I also have seen good beekeepers lose hives for doing the wrong things at the wrong times. There are so many variables: overwinting up north or down south, or potato cellars, pollen paddies when and whose, fumagillen drench or in the syrup, whose queens you have and if they have things in order, your summers honey flow, pesticides near your bees, your truck driver stopping in the middle of the day for a lunch, how you pull your honey, which mite treatments you used and timing, I could keep going on and on, but timing in this business is a "big" deal.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JBJ said:


> Could it be possible to make these transitions and maintain a respectable pollination population? Lets hope so.


well, beekeeping is really only one broken component of a broken system. the monoculture farming that is largely employed in this country both requires insect pollination, and absolutely cannot support it. eventually, this will have to change imho...but i offer no solutions or easy ways out.



> As to your point about probiotics; there have been several interesting discussions about this on beesource. I have long advocated that we need to look at the intestinal flora of thriving untreated hives to compare with collapsing treated hives.


stay tuned....there actually has been a good deal of work done in this area. currently, my wife, ramona, is working on a talk about the microbial environment in the beehive for the nebraska state beekeeping conference. the writings of martha gilliam are like drugs...the complexity, relationships, and vastness of what she describes and studies reminds me of the "powers of 10" film, and one can see the equivalent of the vastness of the universe inside every cell of honeycomb if one looks closely enough.

i don't really like to think of them as "probiotics"...that word implies that there is something beneficial that needs to be added to the system. just as i know that my compost pile has the nutrients i need to grow tomatoes without testing it, or inoculating it with specific microbes....a healthy bee hive without beekeeper applied treatments (synthetic or organic) will have the microbial life that a healthy beehive needs. it's interesting to study these things, the complexity of interactions between 8000 or more microbes coupled with how they interact with the bees makes "beneficial manipulation" nearly impossible.



> My point about Nosema being around since 1985 was just meant to be informative and to suggest that we may have some pockets of bees that already tolerate this fungus well.


as dee lusby has shared on the organic list, she has a set of yards where 200 of 300 hives crashed last year. i've referenced these yards in an earlier post. very initial test results showed nosema c....and these yards are now back up to numbers, is planning a fall split, ...and she just pulled 27 deeps from one yard of these 7 (not the first or last harvest from this yard this year). in any case, someone apparently agrees with your suggestion above, as in 17 hives in these yards, someone has removed the center of the broodnest (5 frames from the center of the 3rd or 4th deep down). if anyone has a 20 or 30 year head start on a resistant breeding program, it's dee....and whomever took these frames 

it's also worth noting that the microbial culture within a hive is likely heritable...and that it's particular makeup is fragile (especially if treatments are used), and this may be as important as genetics, imho.

deknow


----------



## LSPender (Nov 16, 2004)

*Nozevit*



Keith Jarrett said:


> Hey John,
> 
> If all the wheels fall off the beekeeping bus.... It's because they never did much "PM" program.
> 
> Hey the bees look at this time GOOD, BUT, this week the cool weather comes & have my FORMIC ready to go & last pollen patty with NOZEVIT added just in case we get a flat tire.


Kieth, Does the Nozevit work different than Honey B Healthy? 

What options are avaulable for delivery of Nozevit to the hive, you mention pollen sub, can it be used with syrup?

Who are the suppliers of Nozevits

Thanks, Larry Pender


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

I have heard Nozevit contains tannins extracted from the bark of some tree and that it can bee fed in the usual feeding formats. Tannins are known for antimicrobial properties.

Who wants try to some Remebeeplus for viral inhibition in honeybees? Supposedly, this is a feeding supplement based on natural ingredients that help inhibit viral reproduction. Preliminary tests in Fla and Pa sound promising.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

LSPender said:


> Kieth, Does the Nozevit work different than Honey B Healthy?
> 
> What options are avaulable for delivery of Nozevit to the hive, you mention pollen sub, can it be used with syrup?
> 
> ...


Larry, No, HBH does nothing for nosema, but nozevits has some promise and comes in a water base.


Yes, the nozevit can be use in the syrup.

Dadant's are the suppiers of nozevit, I order mine from Dr. Joe in alaska.

Larry, they have a web sight, www.Nozevit.com


----------



## CPeavey (Jan 21, 2009)

*ccd*

It seems that CCD is a fancy term for a coctail of ailments stressing our bees.
One in pactular that might be a link in the chain is Nosemia brought on by stress from mite damage and poor diet. It seems that there is no defenite culprit to point at; but to be calious and just assume the beekeeper was the problem is nieave. If you have 10 hives in a back yard and never move them, then you could go on for many seasons without a problem. However The new strain of Nosemia Is not to be laughed at. I do agree that there was mutch hype over CCD in the media; but the reality sets in quite real when you leave a good stock yard and come back two weeks later and find 70% losses. So I guess we all wait and hope that the new wave of products are better then the old wave..


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

CPeavey said:


> However The new strain of Nosemia Is not to be laughed at. I do agree that there was mutch hype over CCD in the media; but the reality sets in quite real when you leave a good stock yard and come back two weeks later and find 70% losses. .


I agree with you there, but what Hackenburg found was CCD (what ever the cause is) and CCD was the blame for winter loses everywhere, it was a warm winter that year and my bee's was flying most days, I went and check them and I guest with the warm days they were eating through their stores fast (raising brood like in spring) so I started feeding in December through feb that year then it got cold for a few months, then you here CCD, the advertising was good for beekeeping industry but blow way out IMHO. I feel for those that losed but look at this CCD video and tell me why if this hive died from CCD why are the bee's in the cells head first and bottom board full of dead bee's (doesn't sound like CCD to me, these never left the hive), I think most that year starved and people just blamed CCD. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk2PK9AUr7E


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

First off I totally agree with JBJ second post. ANd some other post on here have good merit.
Chumophus is one bad chemical and iin my opinion should have never been approved for use in a beehive. Second chemical buildup in comb is a big problem. All that said we ae contaminating our enviroment in every aspect...look at reports of all the drug residues in our water supply (prescription drugs that have been flushed down sewer or thru body). Look at all the chemicals used in agriculture including growth hormones in animals....then why we are getting large kids? Enough said!!
TWT I will have to disagree with your theory of starvation....honey was in almost all hives, I repeat honey in all hives dead because of CCD....and bees wouldnt rob it out! Alot of people includng bud have commented on here and I'll bet most havent seen CCD in real life!


NOW FOR BUD.....I cannot use the language I would like to ....your post is a so far off board it probably doesnt deserve a response. TO say that CCD is just overuse/misuse of chemicals is. It very well may a contributing cause but I know at least one beekeeper who lost bees who had been using thymol and hadnt used strips for years and had NEVER used paper towels laced with whatever and he also sold many nucs so combis not "old". ANd futhermore to insist that insecticides are not a issue (particular insecticides with neonictinoids)when scientist havent ruled it out makes me wonder if you work for BAYER. Maybe you should bea scientist! You seem to know it all. Futermore I know of no organization AFB....there is ABF, have you attended a national meeting in your life? Maybe you should get more involved. It is a democratic organization....the next meeting in is in Orlando next January...why dont you come and enlighten the large number of beekeepers there, maybe give of your time and run for office!!! Futhermore I have never heard MaryAnn dismiss neonictinoids as a cause or contributor to ccd. SHe has been looking at any and all causes! I do agree with the statement that all the chemicals in comb is bad and I particular think a lot of our queen problems stem from chemicals especially chumophus. Also BUD our bees are being exposed to MANY MANY chemicals in the enviroment including herbicides....look at all the differant pesticides, herbicides beeing found in our hives, MANY of these beekeepers HAVE NOT USED ! Thats why I made the statement above about us as (the whole population poisioning our enviroment) SO to put all the blame on beekeepers is totally wrong! ANd then to blame ABF leadership ....well lets not go there....if you were so good a leader why havent you given your time and talents? Germany and France has even banned neonictinoids.....and I think we all know Germany has some of the best scientist/engineers in the world!... In the end I'm still wondering what low level long term exposure is doing to our bees.....and for that matter TO US? Remember this insecticide has a long half life, is systemic(meaning its in the plant its tissue, pollen, and nectar)....is used on corn, potatoes and on and on.... and we are eating this ....what is it doing to US??? Now...with the CCD i saw the bees flew off and left a **** near perfect brood pattern.....no dead bees on bottom no dead bees in front of hive.....kinda like alzheimers flew off and couldnt find way back home.


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

*What is CCD????*

Do we have it in our outfit?
I guess we do.
Lost over 40% of the outfit last winter & spring
The yards that we had huge losses in are looking just fine this year.
The yards that we had little or no trouble in last year have a problem this winter.
The hives that survived last spring I instructed my son to leave them alone, & don't kill them off.
Many were down to 1 & 2 frames of bees on the 10th of May.
Intrestingly enough these bees are still alive & did make a shallow of honey at least if not more.
Why take the risk you are all asking?
It's real simple.
In my 30 years plus in the bee business I have had the pleasure of meeting many 
" ole timers " who taught me a lot.
I always respected the older beekeepers they always seem to be able to teach the dumbest of us a thing or two.
I always had been told that in the 50's & again in the 60's there were years were the bees would get the " flu " as they called it, leave the hive & never come home.
Yes the bees would just disappear, as with CCD.
Hives would be full one day & 10 days to 2 weeks later just a tea cup of bees & a queen.
Back then they blamed the loss on 2-4D spray.
As with the current CCD deal nothing was ever proved.
I sure don't think there was near the stress put on bees 40 to 50 years ago as there is today but then who knows. 
Spoke with one of our queen breeders yesterday as he was moving bees into the almonds.
He told me that he has already picked up over 25% in the last 6 weeks.
He thinks the problem my be back.
He had great looking bees last year after a tremendous loss the year before.
He & others are very very worried at this point.
Can't say I blame them!


----------



## TwT (Aug 5, 2004)

suttonbeeman said:


> TWT I will have to disagree with your theory of starvation....honey was in almost all hives, I repeat honey in all hives dead because of CCD....and bees wouldnt rob it out!


 I was talking of the video only, it didn't show anything like CCD symptoms are suppose to be but it was about CCD and I was pointing out that a lot of hives died of starvation and people blamed CCD for their starved hives, I am in no way saying it doesn't exist, I am saying I think a good bit of the loses that year was blamed on CCD when it wasn't true. I could have posted the video before I started typing so it would be clear to some but figure most would figure out what I was saying but I seehow it could be misunderstand. and no I haven't seen CCD, none around here But I do know what a starved out hive looks like and thats why I think starved hives was also blamed on CCD just like the video.


----------



## jjgbee (Oct 12, 2006)

The post about the fellow that has a A&D in his last name. One year, I had some dinks that I wouldn't rent to anyone. A friend said this fellow, Mr A&D, would rent anything that was alive. I delivered them to the location for almonds and my worst was his average. As for his giant loss a few years back, his own help said he split to far and the gamble failed. Ther is something going on,CCD?, but some bad beekeeping IS being blamed on CCD.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

*telling it like it is*



jjgbee said:


> The post about the fellow that has a A&D in his last name. One year, I had some dinks that I wouldn't rent to anyone. A friend said this fellow, Mr A&D, would rent anything that was alive. I delivered them to the location for almonds and my worst was his average. As for his giant loss a few years back, his own help said he split to far and the gamble failed. Ther is something going on,CCD?, but some bad beekeeping IS being blamed on CCD.


Very well said


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> ANd futhermore to insist that insecticides are not a issue (particular insecticides with neonictinoids)when scientist havent ruled it out makes me wonder if you work for BAYER. -suttonbeeman


That's quite an accusation. You realize you're impugning quite a number of folks for falsifying data/results for a specific purpose, right? Your comments in a scientific meeting would be grounds for an all-out brawl, and not just verbal.



> Futhermore I have never heard MaryAnn dismiss neonictinoids as a cause or contributor to ccd. SHe has been looking at any and all causes! -suttonbeeman


I cannot comment on what any specific researcher may or may not have done, but I would be very surprised to learn that none of the researchers involved in searching for a cause or contributing factor to CCD had tested neonicotinoids. Such a test is really very simply from a scientific standpoint: group hives into two treatments. One treatment gets a very low dose of a neonicotinoid. The other does not. If the assertion that neonicotinoids are the cause of CCD is accurate, the treatment group that received the dose of chemicals should express symptoms of CCD.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

*Elucidate all the Variables*

I suspect for that experiment to tell us much useful information IAPV of the specific variant associated with collapsing hives must be present along with protein stress. There are likely many variables to this equation.

So if we can eliminate: 
~virus with Remebee or genetic tolerance
~nutritional stress with management
~Nosema
~toxic comb residue with better mite controls

Have we ended CCD? 

There will always be some PPB blamed on or exacerbated by CCD, but by most accounts there has been a sharp increase in colony mortality in recent years. It would be interesting to combine sub-lethal neo-nic exposure to each of the fore mentioned variables and each of their possible combinations. Now that would be a truly informative study!


----------



## beenovice (Jun 19, 2007)

Neonicotinoids....

http://firenze.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/4468701?ref=rephpsp4

Use google translate.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Wow, that looks like it would be a nightmare, especially in drought conditions. For those not familliar with guttation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttation


----------



## Cedar Hill (Jan 27, 2009)

JBJ said:


> I recently attended a beekeeping conference where Dr Pettis stated that N.ceranae has been found in US bee samples as far back as 1985 and recently read in the November ABJ that the Israelis have developed what amounts to a vaccination (Remebee) for IAPV, a virus frequently associated with CCD. The same technology is potentially applicable for other bee viruses.
> 
> This makes me wonder out loud...perhaps if we can cure viral infections in our bees and N. ceranae is really nothing that new, perhaps we have seen or will soon see the end of CCD? With viruses, mites and Nosema fully in check, maybe the "sub lethal" negative impacts of neo-nics and other pesticides will be better tolerated by our bees if proper nutrition is provided?
> 
> Who's ready to bet the farm?


Our 350 hives were headed by Mraz queens around 1985 and were suffering from what was then called the "disappearing disease". CCD?


----------



## suttonbeeman (Aug 22, 2003)

Kieck

My point was Bud [edit by mod] keeps claiming that no neonictinoids are a cause or contributing cause of CCD when its not been ruled out(or ruled a cause for that matter) by anyone. Futher I'm not claiming that scientist are dishonest but If you think reserach isnt tilted toward a direction or heads are not turned the other way when big $$$$ are involved well you got a alot to learn! I'm sure most scientist are honest....but big $$$ rules this country now from A to Z. Sometimes the plug gets pulled on research.....and where does alot of research $$ come from/.....you guessed it drug/chemical companies!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Naw, most research money for stuff like this comes from government spending, not from drug/chemical companies.

Sure, some research is likely biased or slanted by some interests. But read the stuff in the peer-reviewed journals -- the honest-to-goodness research results -- and that stuff is pretty solid. Get caught having to retract published research work, and you're likely done as a researcher.

But I tell you what -- if you don't believe the research on neonicotinoids (or the logic that pretty well rules them out as a cause of CCD), try some experiments for yourself. See what you find.


----------



## France (Apr 5, 2007)

Since this was already posted up top - but it went unnoticed I will do it again with a little help, cause I see that some still need a bit more of a push? But some, I doubt that they can be pushed away from their agenda. . .




At the 25th Italian Congress of Professional Beekeepers in Sorento,
Jan. 21 - 26,2009, two scientists from University in Padova presented
those in attendance with amazing proof that the talk around the water
cooler, now has some substance, only the blind and the deaf can
now argue against it... (And those with their own agendas?!)

Prof. Vincenco Girolami, Univ. Padova, has proved beyond any doubt,
that many insecticides which are used to treat seeds are deathly
dangerous to all insects and other living things - not only bees. He
also mentioned, that the research needed to allow the use of those
chemicals was made in haste in is flawed. He also talks about
excuses that the sowing machines ware faulty and that bonding agents
were wrong, or not bonding properly? (Many were, but that is not the
point)
They found that the sprouting/growing plants, (Corn in this case)
create/leach through active growing period, on its leaves, tiny drops
of watter-like liquid, which is seen as dew and is highly desirable
to all insects as a form of water. (To many - the only form of
water!) Bees are very found of this, slightly sweet dew, and they
collect it "en mass" in early morning, before the sun and wind dry
it up.
If the seeds of corn, or other crop, ware treated with insecticides,
that insecticide is contained in this dew and is highly toxic to
visiting insects.
It has been proven that this "morning dew" is deadly for bees! If a
bee drinks it - it will die within 2 to 10 minutes!
If it only tastes it - it will die within 20 to 40 minutes!

Professor Andrea Tapiro, university of Padova, did collect this dew
and analyzed it. It shoved that it contained insecticide which
contains neonicotinoids and concentration in her sample contained 10
mg, to one litre of this morning dew.
Known fact is, that that contaminant is deadly to bees and other life
in much, much smaller amounts!!!

They even made a video where they planted treated seeds and collected
those drops of dew and fed them to bees. The results are self-
explanatory. . .



http://firenze.repubblica.it/multimedia/home/4468701?ref=rephpsp4


All this information is available on Internet and from the above mentioned professors or the University in Padova...


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

"Naw, most research money for stuff like this comes from government spending, not from drug/chemical companies." Kieck


and who has the most powerful lobbies?
If the gov spent money on it it must be true.

While neo-nics may not be the outright cause, it is one more straw on the camels back. If you had the choice to run your bees on a neo-nic treated crop vs an untreated what would you you choose?


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JBJ said:


> While neo-nics may not be the outright cause, it is one more straw on the camels back.


well, if the "cinder block" on the camels back is due to beekeeping practices, the "straw" is kind of irrelevant.

deknow


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

It might be if you had a choice to go into a treated crop vs an untreated crop.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> If you had the choice to run your bees on a neo-nic treated crop vs an untreated what would you you choose? -JBJ


I don't have a choice. I run my bees here. And virtually all of the corn around here is grown using neonicotinoid seed treatments. Oh, and I haven't seen any sign of CCD in any of my hives yet.

Of course, the bees from my hives don't work corn much, either. Neither do they work other grasses much.

And as has been recognized by pretty much everyone, insecticides -- including neonicotinoids -- can be very toxic to bees. However, "dropping dead in minutes" from exposure to neonicotinoids doesn't sound much at all like the symptoms that characterize CCD.


----------



## Bud Dingler (Feb 8, 2008)

2008 will be remembered as the Madoff and Ponzi schemes in the banking world. 

my prediction is 2009 will unravel the myth surrounding the neonics. my sources tell me there is convincing proof in a study due to be released soon. 

as I have maintained in earlier posts. the bayer scapegoat is a smoke screen for the contaminators who have used everything under the sun in their hives. the CCD poster Boy so often in the news ragging about Bayer has a long and illustrious career of using a laundry list of treatments mostly illegal in his hives. its hilarious to hear him going on and on about Bayer like he has any real proof at all. whats so funny to me is how he never wants to discuss anymore in person the treatments he has used in the past. 

if some of you knew what the "big boys" toss into their hives on a 2-3X a year basis you would be amazed that bees are even alive at all. this is a general consensus from the CCD researchers - they new that shop rag and home made treatments was a problem but they had no idea how bad the contamination of brood comb is.

most users here have a limited background in science and thats fine. if you had a deeper background in science you would 
understand that some part per billion trace of neonic found in nectar of a plant that bees rarely feed on (corn) is irrelevant. like thats why the scientific community here in the USA discarded the notion a long time ago that any widespread problem was caused by Bayer. 

the Adee massacre in 2008 was a virus spread by the unusual and unnatural density from the feedlotting of bees. bees weakened by illegal and over use of shop rag treatments can pick up a virus much easier then some hobby hive in a back yard when the beek is using legal labeled treatments. 

CCD is an Industrial Beekeeping problem created by operator error - not some scary pathogen or evil insecticide from Bayer, 

this whole concern on CCD is really irrelevant for hobbyists etc - of course its interesting reading for all of us.


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Bud I do not think your assertions are fair or accurate. Many of beekeepers that I know of that maintain loses of less than 5% losses annually are large commercial outfits that do a lot "feedlot beekeeping". 

On the other side of the coin, I also know smaller organic oriented beeks who have never used anything illegal in their operations who have reported CCD like symptoms. I think it is important not to paint with too broad of a brush.

As to science; the beautiful thing about science is that it seeks universal truths. If US scientists discover something it will be peer reviewed and be accepted or refuted worldwide and a consensus formed. When one country or group stands out as an anomaly I would consider that a red flag and a reason to look more closely at the work.

Here is a little gem on Bayer and evilness: 

"The Bayer company then became part of IG Farben, a conglomerate of German chemical industries that formed a part of the the financial core of the German Nazi regime. IG Farben owned 42.5% of the company that manufactured Zyklon B[citation needed], a chemical used in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other extermination camps. During World War II, the company also extensively used slave labor in factories attached to large slave labor camps, notably the sub-camps of the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[2]. When the Allies split IG Farben into several pieces after World War II for involvement in organized Nazi war crimes, Bayer reappeared as an individual business. The Bayer executive Fritz ter Meer, sentenced to seven years in prison by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, was made head of the supervisory board of Bayer in 1956, after his release.[3]" Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer

I start this thread because I was excited to see that we now have several means to control the viral component of this disease complex. There will likely be some informative patterns emerge with technologies like the bee chip, integrated viral detection systems, and advanced genomics all being plied to the CCD situation.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

what you have posted about "bayer evilness" could readily be applied to the citizens of germany in general who elected hitler, allowed their children to be hitler youth, murdered millions in cold blood, and manned his army.

so, are all germans evil? i don't think so, and i don't think your example above makes bayer "evil".

deknow


----------



## JBJ (Jan 27, 2005)

Whether they are altruistic or evil is probably for the tailgater. I do know that the drug and chemical lobbies out there are the most powerful on each side of the aisle, so I tend to be a skeptic and take with a grain of salt stated positions and intentions. Follow the money as they say. There last great product for our industry sure was a massive train wreck; that being coumophos. I see why it was banned most industries and countries.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

JBJ said:


> Whether they are altruistic or evil is probably for the tailgater.


probably true...but unless i'm misunderstanding things, this is was posted as a way to indict bayer in lew of actual evidence. kind of like bringing up some irrelevant background of someone that one wants to be guilty of an actual crime when there is no evidence.

i don't understand why "if bayer chems are consumed by bees it will kill them" is used as a way to "prove" that "bayer chems are killing bees" in infinitely more cases than there is evidence to support.

find these chems inside beehives and you will have something.

assuming that the bees could die before they return to the hive, go out in a field of crops treated with bayer chems with a butterfly net and collect bees in the field with lethal levels of bayer chems.

this is the kind of evidence that is needed to support your contention, and it's not hard to collect.

deknow


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'll second deknow's last post.

Show cause-and-effect in the accused circumstances. I've written it before, and I will again: if neonicotinoids (or other pesticides) are really the cause of CCD, all that really needs to be done is simply treating a group of hives with the chemical(s) in question at the rates in question. If the symptoms are those of CCD, then the link is pretty likely. If the symptoms are not, then that treatment is unlikely the cause of CCD.

That's not saying that the chemicals might be harmless to the bees. They could be very harmful, depending of the circumstances. Neonicotinoids certainly can be deadly to bees. So can gasoline. So can soapy water. That doesn't mean that gasoline or soapy water is the cause of CCD.


----------

