# Monsanto & Bayer Working On Varroa Mite Solutions



## BlueDiamond

Monsanto Research:

Beekeepers, Monsanto come together for summit Jun 13, 2013
http://www.arcamax.com/business/businessnews/s-1341265?source=outbrain

Excerpt: "The company is working on a new technology intended to control a tiny insect, called the varroa mite, that has been a major factor in the decimation of honey bees. If Monsanto successfully brings the technology to market, it could be a blockbuster."

Bayer-Crop Science Research:

A new way of protecting bees against varroa mites
http://beecare.bayer.com/media-cent...w-way-of-protecting-bees-against-varroa-mites

Excerpt: "In the past, efforts to control this parasite have concentrated exclusively on treatment in the hive, but foraging bees then bring back new mites when they return home. Bayer’s scientists have been working with bee researchers from Frankfurt University to develop the varroa gate, which is designed to prevent reinfection. This innovative front door should effectively protect the hive against the deadly parasite."


----------



## Ravenzero

For me to give these two companies a single penny, they would have to cure mites FOREVER.
Public opinion of both companies are at an all time low.


----------



## ElderBombadil

Well of course they are working on killing the Varro... its the only chance they have to deflect the accusation that GMO crops are killing off bees. The question is what if this does work and work really well? What if CCD and massive bee offs decline?

I really don't like Monsanto but I need to also keep a open mind.


----------



## BlueDiamond

ElderBombadil said:


> The question is what if this does work and work really well? What if CCD and massive bee offs decline?


According to Randy Oliver, an oversupply of bees would be real bad for the keepers that go to almonds and other crops that are currently commanding high rental prices:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1305&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=A&P=82277

"The market for bees is self regulating. A shortage of bees could cause a temporary setback for the almond industry, but a real disaster for beekeepers would be a glut of bees that would drive the pollination price to the floor. An over supply of bees would put many of us out of business."


----------



## melliferal

So in other words, the current CCD crisis can in a way be considered _good for commercial beekeeping business_.

That is unfortunate; logically, it means that commercial operations - which is where lies any and all of the money and lobbying power our field has - can be counted upon to support CCD-combative efforts less and less the closer to a solution anybody gets.


----------



## JClark

ElderBombadil said:


> The question is what if this does work and work really well? What if CCD and massive bee offs decline?


You'd have a lot of die hard anti-neonic folks out there swearing it is an illusion.


----------



## BigDawg

Coming from Monsanto, who told us that PCB's were safe (which we now know is one of the most toxic substances on the planet) and got caught TWICE during the Roundup approval process of hiring outside labs that falsified scientific data, made false statements to investigators, and committed mail fraud (over 14 people went to prison....) I don't put much faith in what Monsanto says. Clearly, they are looking to divert attention away from their neonicotinoid products which have already made them over a billion dollars in profits...


----------



## ElderBombadil

Key word is what if.... Neonic may also be a problem. However we can't figure it out if you have so many competing issues. We work on solving them and when you get one out of the way its easyer to see if that was the issue or not.

As for the shortage of bees being a boon for commercial beekeepers; I can understand their pain. I was a real estate appraiser during the 1990s and watch as our family firm lost business to appraisers that would hit any number and do it cheap. After the crash the demand dropped like a rock and the industry lost well over half the appraisers... my self included. Now with the latest real estate bubble being blown there is lack of appraiser and demand and fees are up a little bit. Capitalism can be a nasty to the business man but its better then a nationally plan economy. Commercial Beeks need to understand the ins and out and learn to adapt to survive. That or get out and find a different living.


----------



## Hambone

BigDawg said:


> Coming from Monsanto, who told us that PCB's were safe (which we now know is one of the most toxic substances on the planet) and got caught TWICE during the Roundup approval process of hiring outside labs that falsified scientific data, made false statements to investigators, and committed mail fraud (over 14 people went to prison....) I don't put much faith in what Monsanto says. Clearly, they are looking to divert attention away from their neonicotinoid products which have already made them over a billion dollars in profits...


Do you have any links to these. I am not doubting you, I would just like to read about that.


----------



## Daniel Y

Here is just one that is fall off a log easy to find.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_biphenyl
I didn't do much more than a trip over it effort. You might find much more if you search PCB's.

Here is another that addresses Monsanto's credibility and ethics. i make no claim as to it's accuracy. just that someone thought enough of it to write it.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/pcbs010702.cfm


----------



## RayMarler

Varroa has been here since the late 1980's and CCD was not until 2006. I have a hard time believing that varroa is the main issue for the recent decline in beehive survival over winter. Common sense and logic says this is a distraction from Bayer and Monsanto.


----------



## ElderBombadil

I am no friend of Monsanto and I think there GMO stuff should not be used. That being said we all know that Monsanto will do what is best for Monsanto... right now that is to try and prove that their chemicals are not an issue. What they have to do of course is find another issue that is taking down bees. If they can find a way to stop varroa I would like to see them give it a shot. Of course if they succeed I bet we will still be seeing odd CCD issues and they will not have varroa to blame.


----------



## jim lyon

BigDawg said:


> Clearly, they are looking to divert attention away from their neonicotinoid products which have already made them over a billion dollars in profits...


Monsanto made a billion dollars manufacturing neonics? Which ones?


----------



## Charlie B

RayMarler said:


> Varroa has been here since the late 1980's and CCD was not until 2006. I have a hard time believing that varroa is the main issue for the recent decline in beehive survival over winter. Common sense and logic says this is a distraction from Bayer and Monsanto.


I'm with you Ray. It's really sad to see what their money buys including prominent beekeepers like Jerry Hayes.


----------



## JRG13

LOL JIm, these guys don't even know it's Bayer that makes all those and not Monsanto, that's how informed they are. I bet they think Monsanto makes the most money out of all the ag/ag chemical companies too. I got to watch the summit there was some interesting perspectives. I don't remember who said it, but they believed varroa is probably 80% responsible for most of the issues but we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## BigDawg

Hambone said:


> Do you have any links to these. I am not doubting you, I would just like to read about that.


Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories

It's interesting to note that IBT hired one of Monsanto's toxicologists (Dr. Paul Wright) to complete the lab's safety analysis of PCB's to be turned into the government. Of course as we now know, PCB's are one of the most toxic substances on earth, even though for decades Monsanto told the public and govt regulators that PCB's were safe.

"The magnitude of IBT's scientific misconduct was considered to have been extensive: 618 of 867 (71%) of studies audited by the FDA were invalidated for having "numerous discrepancies between the study conduct and data."[5][27] Consequently, IBT would later be described as being "at the center of one of the most far-reaching scandals in modern science, as thousands of its studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate."[28]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/misc.legal/uVaqbv3vNUQ/9x9lCoh9N3MJ

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/tcaw/10/i11/html/11regs.html


----------



## BigDawg

JRG13 said:


> LOL JIm, these guys don't even know it's Bayer that makes all those and not Monsanto, that's how informed they are. I bet they think Monsanto makes the most money out of all the ag/ag chemical companies too. I got to watch the summit there was some interesting perspectives. I don't remember who said it, but they believed varroa is probably 80% responsible for most of the issues but we'll have to wait and see.



If your position is that Monsanto does not make money from neonicotinoid products, you would be wrong. Smartstax, Acceleron, Poncho, and Poncho Votivo, are all neonics products sold and marketed by Monsanto.


----------



## JRG13

Ur funny BigDawg. Smartstax is a traited seed, not an insecticide. If you spell Monsanto like this B-A-Y-E-R then you are correct on the others.


----------



## BigDawg

Smartstax is treated with Monsanto's Acceleron...

Yes, Monsanto partners with Bayer, Dow, etc., but they also directly market and sell neonics products:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/Pages/acceleron-seed-treatment-products.aspx

http://www.acceleronsts.com/Corn/Documents/2010 National Summary Poncho VOTiVO.pdf


----------



## jim lyon

Simply put: neonicitinoids are not Monsantos business and Bayer makes Poncho. And where do you get your billion dollar profit from neonicitinoid numbers? Why not just deal with facts instead of hyperbole?


----------



## BigDawg

Neonics are a nearly $2 billion *a year* product line, and Monsanto has been selling neonic products for over 15 years now according to my info. At some point during the hearings in the EU about the potential ban on neonics, Monsanto provided info trying to sway regulators about losses to the economy from a ban, and in the report were figures showing that Monsanto had made over $1 Billion from systemic/neonic pesticides. I'll try and dig it up....

Hyperbole is saying that Monsanto does not make money from neonics--as a back-handed way of making critics of Monsanto sound ignorant--when the truth is that Monsanto DOES make a LOT of money from neonic products that they market and sell...... I provided links to Monsanto's own website where they list these products, so please let's stop with the hyperbole about hyperbole.....


----------



## thenance007

My biggest fear from Monsanto re bees is their purchase of BeeLogics. Wouldn't surprise me if they are working on genetically modified bees (that can fight varroa or whatever). Then when their GM drones mate with our queens, they will sue us for patent infringement and charge us to use their patented genes--just like they have done to organic farmers whose crops are contaminated by windblown pollen from their GMO corn and soybeans. If you don't think that could happen, you don't know their history.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> Why not just deal with facts instead of hyperbole?


are you kidding Jim,? these guys dont toss around facts when talking about these ag giants, they dont have to! a bunch of made up criss crossed mixed up statements works better at making their points,

hmmm, was this topic not started on some varroa gate? I have not heard mention of it during this entire discussion, just a lot of company bashing


----------



## Barry

I think a new rule will be, if bees aren't part of at least every other post, the thread gets closed. Might get kinda boring around here!


----------



## WLC

Do I think that Monsanto, Bayer, etc., have the resources to beat Varroa destructor?

Yup.

It's only recently, however, that they've become interested in Honeybee health.

Perhaps it's the bad press or the EU ban, or the neonic dust that has brought this about.

They've courted alot of the big name beekeeping experts.

They've also gathered together some of the best scientific talent in beekeeping.

We'll just have to wait and see how things work out.


----------



## Ian

The beekeeping industry has had small dollars spent on RnD over these last 50 years where as it sits within the agricultural industry that has had billions spent on it. The landscape has changed, our hives do not interact with agriculture the same way they did 50 years ago. Beekeeping has to catch up, we need to be able to control all these diseases without drenching our hives with chemicals. We need our hives to be able to co exist amoung fields of crop without fearing pesticide losses. We need to be able to provide our hives with adequate nutrition which will allow them to survive to the next season.

We do not have any of that right now, If these guys are willing to pour in the cash to help alleviate some of our issues Im all for it. There is alot of breaking science right around the corner, we have to be willing to adopt it.

and for all the rest of you, good luck trying to change things back to the way they were 50 years ago....


----------



## JRG13

Nance, they will not make a gmo bee. That was stated at the recent summit. Also, Monsanto has never sued for inadvertent trait drift, case in point the recent supreme court decision to toss the case brought on by all the big organic companies. The companies were suing stating the company would come after them if they found licensed traits in their product but there wasn't a single case to back up their claims where someone got sued for not knowing a trait got into their material.


----------



## JRG13

Ian, that was discussed at the summit as well. Almonds put about 160k a year into it. Someone asked why no one else in the Ag industry does and Dan Cummings was clear... bees have always been seen as an input cost, an expense, and being such needs to support itself. That being said, it's also known that beekeepers get the short end of the stick on pollination prices etc... but that comes down to basic economics. Pollination prices drop off after almonds because supply outweighs demand.


----------



## WLC

JR13:

Technically, they don't have to make a GM bee. That's part of what Beeologics' technology was about.

Frankly, it was a big leap in the whole GM model. Instant transgenesis, and then it's gone.

As for what some folks are saying about the role of managed pollinators in improving productivity..

They're wrong.

All GM crops should have been made deliberately attractive to pollinators like Honeybees, even the self pollinating kind.

That was a big mistake.


----------



## Ian

if beekeepers even had half the tools the rest of agriculture just assumes, we would be in a totally different working environment right now.

Let me make a point,

This last summer North America was hot and dry. We beekeepers all know what that means, and we were all talking about what that hot dry weather was going to do on our hives wintering ability. But it was not until they started dying that same winter did anyone actually realize what was happening! Mal Nutrition, queens shut down, stress, disease, dead hives. 

Are there any beekeepers in the country side that had taken a pollen sample to determine the nutrition coming in? Were the bees getting what they needed to survive? Nobody knows, because nobody except for a few beekeepers in California does that stuff, nobody knows exactly what has to be coming into the hive at particular times of the year to keep the hives going. If beekeepers knew that, all of our hives would be alive. Including mine and my neighbours. Supplements would of been used this last summer. 

Our cattle operation does not go a day without measuring out exactly what each animal needs from food that has been prepared from analysis done to determine the exact feed values. Its not rocket science, just we have a avenue through our suppliers which provide us these services. And the pay back to us is huge.

we need a bit of that in the beekeeping industry,


----------



## WLC

It needs the same subsidies that much of the rest of U.S. agriculture enjoys.

Perhaps the EU ban is beekeeping's 'Cinderella' moment? Is this your glass slipper?


----------



## Ian

who said anything about beekeeping subsidies?

actually subsidies has very little if anything to do with it,


----------



## WLC

Beekeepers are like a 'step sister'.

It's far too challenging to make beekeeping a viable lifestyle choice without them.


----------



## Ian

okay WLC, who ever you are, 
your making about as much sense as you did during our last conversation. A connection to agriculture would help you understand the dynamics better,

good luck with that


----------



## WLC

Honeybee pollination of crops is known to produce an increase in yields in the double digit %ages.

The same can be said about GM technology.

Which of the two is preferable?


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> Do I think that Monsanto, Bayer, etc., have the resources to beat Varroa destructor? Yup. It's only recently, however, that they've become interested in Honeybee health. Perhaps it's the bad press or the EU ban, or the neonic dust that has brought this about.


I think Monsanto and Bayer figure the best way to deal with all the anti-synthetic pesticide, anti-GMO, pro-organic activism is to beat the activists at their own game via coming out with innovative products to help solve bee health problems. Who knows, maybe they even have an advanced nutritional supplement for bees up their sleeve. And Bayer just came out with a comprehensive new line of natural, organic approved insecticides, fungicides and herbicides for the organic oriented home gardener: http://www.bayeradvanced.com/natria


----------



## cg3

Y'all are attributing a lot of motives to corporations that just exist to make money for their shareholders.


----------



## WLC

cg3:

After the EU ban due to environmental contamination and bee kills, I think that they're going to be much more interested in what beekeepers are saying.

Otherwise, they will have to explain things to shareholders.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Honeybee pollination of crops is known to produce an increase in yields in the double digit %ages.


crops such as.......?


----------



## melliferal

RayMarler said:


> Varroa has been here since the late 1980's and CCD was not until 2006. I have a hard time believing that varroa is the main issue for the recent decline in beehive survival over winter. Common sense and logic says this is a distraction from Bayer and Monsanto.


Neonics were around before 2006.

Although so were cell towers, but that doesn't stop a few holdouts from swearing that "cell tower radiation" is the cause of CCD, either.


----------



## WLC

Alfalfa.

Don't forget the study I showed you regarding an increase in soybean yields due to Honeybee pollination.

Also, bees are known to be all over certain types of corn.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> an increase in soybean yields due to Honeybee pollination.


right....


----------



## Ian

from the opening link ;
>>>Only a closer look shows the immense benefits of this innovation. The plastic strip is coated in chemicals. Whenever a bee passes through the gate, it touches the edge. This transfers a mite poison (acaricide) to the bee and kills any mites it may be carrying. The substance needs to be permanently available on the surface of the strip so that protection can last for several weeks. <<<

Whats the chances of any pollen making it into the hive through this gadget? or worst, when the bees get the pollen through, it will be nicely treated with its chemical agent,...


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Alfalfa.
> 
> Don't forget the study I showed you regarding an increase in soybean yields due to Honeybee pollination.
> 
> Also, bees are known to be all over certain types of corn.


Farmers raising alfalfa seed learned that decades ago. Corn and beans? i wish. Farmers and crop managers aren't stupid if there were a 10% yield to be gained farmers would be beating down my door for bees. I have never seen bees on a corn tassel in years and rarely find one in a soybean field. Come on out and see (or don't see) for yourself. I will pay you $100 for each bee you can photograph on a field corn tassel or a soybean bloom.


----------



## Ian

again WLC, that lack of agricultural connection is shinning through

this is a reason why the beekeeping industry cherishes Randy Oliver so much, his back ground in agriculture proves to be very useful


----------



## BigDawg

If Bayer and Monsanto were serious about protecting bees, maybe they could start by addressing the issue of planter dust in either the application instructions and/or the sales literature for their neonic products. I spent the better part of an hour at Monsanto's and Bayer's website reading over the MDSS and application directions for their neonic products, and I didn't see a word about planter dust and steps to take to mitigate it, even though there's clear evidence of hives being seriously harmed or wiped out by planter dust. When one kernal of neonic-treated/coated seed has enough poison on it to kill 100,000 bees, you'd think they'd be a little more clear with their end users about what the risks are and how to avoid them.

I predict that within the next 5-10 years, GMO's will loose favor as GMO labeling laws in the US take effect and consumers shun them, and farmers start to take a cold hard look at rising seed and proprietary pesticide costs coupled with decreased consumer demand and marginal if any increases in yield. Europe and Asia have made it clear that for the most part they want nothing to do with GMO's, and the recent "Ghost GMO" wheat in found in Oregon has brought the issue into the international spotlight again. 2 million people in over 60 countries took to the streets just a few weeks ago and the message was loud and clear: We don't trust Monsanto and we don't want GMO's....


----------



## Ian

from the opening link ;
>>>Only a closer look shows the immense benefits of this innovation. The plastic strip is coated in chemicals. Whenever a bee passes through the gate, it touches the edge. This transfers a mite poison (acaricide) to the bee and kills any mites it may be carrying. The substance needs to be permanently available on the surface of the strip so that protection can last for several weeks. <<<

I wonder if this treatment would greatly shorten the life span of the foraging bees, being treated everytime they leave and enter the hive. hundreds of visits are made each day,


----------



## Ian

BigDawg said:


> GMO's will loose favor as GMO labeling laws in the US take effect and consumers shun them,


That is the best way to get GMO's off the market place, if consumers quit buying them


----------



## WLC

We all know that's not going to happen.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> If Bayer and Monsanto were serious about protecting bees, maybe they could start by addressing the issue of planter dust in either the application instructions and/or the sales literature for their neonic products.


Bayer has been actively researching methods of reducing planter dust off: http://www.croplife.com/article/332...eed-lubricant-system-at-epa-pollinator-summit 
http://seedgrowth.bayer.com/index.php?id=29


----------



## JStinson

> I have never seen bees on a corn tassel in years and rarely find one in a soybean field. Come on out and see (or don't see) for yourself. I will pay you $100 for each bee you can photograph on a field corn tassel or a soybean bloom.


Jim, I can get you as many pictures as you like. Saw bees on tassels just this morning. Though it wasn't field corn. Silver Queen I believe.


----------



## JRG13

Big Dawg it was mentioned at the summit, the dust issue. Eric Mussen had some suggestions of either using less talc or doing something just prior to planting to reduce dust, but I didn't quit hear what he said clearly.


----------



## WLC

"I will pay you $100 for each bee you can photograph on a field corn tassel or a soybean bloom."

Jim, you'd better hope that hpm doesn't want some of that action. He reported that Honeybees were all over certain varieties of corn.

"again WLC, that lack of agricultural connection is shinning throughthis is a reason why the beekeeping industry cherishes Randy Oliver so much, his back ground in agriculture proves to be very useful"

Oh really? I'm the one who pointed out that researchers were working on developing strains of pollinator friendly soybeans since they discovered that even self pollinating soybeans can benifit from pollinators. It can increase yields.


----------



## camero7

> Jim, you'd better hope that hpm doesn't want some of that action. He reported that Honeybees were all over certain varieties of corn.


I have bees fairly close to some sweet corn and the farmer reports lots of bees in the tassels. I have bees next to some field corn and I've never see a bee on the tassels. I believe that bees work sweet corn but not field corn. I'm sure Jim was talking about field corn.


----------



## sqkcrk

jim lyon said:


> Farmers raising alfalfa seed learned that decades ago. Corn and beans? i wish. Farmers and crop managers aren't stupid if there were a 10% yield to be gained farmers would be beating down my door for bees. I have never seen bees on a corn tassel in years and rarely find one in a soybean field. Come on out and see (or don't see) for yourself. I will pay you $100 for each bee you can photograph on a field corn tassel or a soybean bloom.


What about Buckwheat yield? I have a guy who wants my bees to work his buckwheat field because his Dad told him buckwheat needs bees.


----------



## WLC

Here's a link to a Xerces article on how bees can increase soybean yields:

http://www.xerces.org/2011/04/01/pollinators-increase-profit-decrease-risks/


----------



## WLC

My point being...

While it's great that Monsanto, Bayer, etc. are now interested in helping out the bees, I would characterize the Varroa pesticide strip as being kinda lame.

Now making all varieties of GM crops, even the self pollinating kind, attractive to bees, that would be really helpful to beekeepers.


----------



## WLC

Jim:

Here's a video for you to examine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJeEYC7oRW8

No, I'm not going to collect. Just toss something extra in the collection basket.


----------



## Barry

Goodness, read what Jim said!

"Come on out and see (or don't see) for yourself. I will pay you $100 for each bee you can photograph on a field corn tassel or a soybean bloom."

Showing a video of a bee or two on silver queen corn tassel proves what? It's not field corn nor the variety that is planted where Jim lives. :scratch: Forget about the collection plate, sounds like you need to visit the confessional.


----------



## WLC

Barry:

It's a mindset issue.

Crop scientists are saying that they can make crops, even the self pollinating ones, attractive to bees.

Now since Jim is a beekeeper, and his corn isn't a variety that bees find attractive...

:scratch:


----------



## jim lyon

Do you have evidence that growers of Silver Queen sweet corn are seeing a yield advantage from honeybee pollination? As Barry pointed out, your video, while interesting, is hardly relevant to the varieties of field corn grown by nearly every corn farmer across the US. It's not "my corn" it's the field corn sold by such seed breeders as Pioneer and Dekalb near virtually every bee location we operate. I will pay you a thousand dollars if you can take such a video with one of our bee locations in the back ground. Claiming a 10% yield advantage on such varieties where bees are so rarely even seen is folly. On the outside chance you win the lottery and find such video evidence I would require a name address and SSN# for the 1099. .


----------



## WLC

Jim:

I also provided a link to a Xerces article that mentioned a boost in soybean yields of 10-40% thanks to Honeybee pollination.

No, I don't know if the same thing is happening with 'Silver Queen' corn.

I'm advocating for something better from Monsanto, Bayer et al. besides a 'bandaid' Varroa strip.

I think all GM crops should be pollinator friendly.

Have you ever thought of asking the folks at Pioneer and Dekalb if they have, or ever considered developing, pollinator friendly field corn?

Just a suggestion.


----------



## jim lyon

Well soybeans are "another kettle of fish" that is for sure. Clearly there are varieties and situations where nectar has been produced and honey crops raised from soybeans. It is all a bit mysterious and elusive to me. We saw it on some bees in western Iowa 20+ years ago but haven't seen it for years. I routinely walk into soybean fields through the summer and just never see bees working it, though they can be quite difficult to see as there is so much foliage and it's under a canopy. I occassionally will hear what sounds like a honey bee but have never actually observed one on a bloom. The folks at places like Pioneer aren't going to be too impressed by my suggestions I am afraid, they are owned by DuPont and have been making a concerted effort for years to control the seed market. I am surprised that they seem to have escaped the same (rightful) public scrutiny that the rest of the large agri-business companies have. Virtually all the small seed corn companies have been bought out by these giants long ago. Want to raise a lot of grain? Just sign up with these folks, sign your Monsanto agreement pay an outrageous amount for your seed and build yourself a great big grain bin. You will find out why good farm ground is bringing $10,000 per acre.


----------



## Barry

jim lyon said:


> On the outside chance you win the lottery and find such video evidence I would require a name address and SSN# for the 1099. .


And the name would have to be made available here as proof!


----------



## WLC

No, Barry. I'm not going out to SD for $1,000. No bet.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> No, Barry. I'm not going out to SD for $1,000. No bet.


Well there are a lot of folks out here who wouldn't go to NYC for $1,000 either.  Just make it a point to walk into a large corn or soybean field somewhere in your travels and actually get some first hand experience about some of what you speak. It's far better than a downloaded You Tube video. I don't profess to know much more about this issue than what my first hand experience has shown me. I speak up because I am afraid that what a lot of people will take away from these threads the notion that corn is a major pollen and maybe even nectar plant and that, in my experience, is simply just not true.


----------



## WLC

I've seen enough fields here in NY state. I didn't look close enough to notice if any pollination was going on though.

I was making the point that there are varieties of corn and soybean that do attract bees.

But, you're saying that most of the corn you've seen isn't pollinator friendly.


----------



## BigDawg

Maybe nobody told the bees in these photos that they weren't supposed to forage on corn....

https://www.google.com/search?q=pho...VA8fUqAHZiYCACQ&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1186&bih=603


----------



## Ian

hmmm I dont know guys, 
we grow hundreds of acres of corn, and I have bees right beside the fields
I have yet to see a bee on a corn plant during tasseling 
they do say on humid dewy mornings during times when other sources are not in bloom, they will visit corn. But they also visit our saw dust pile during times of nothing else avaliable

and for soybeans, it would be nice if they made those flowers attractive to bees


----------



## jim lyon

All I am doing is relating my experiences and I have kept bees in the heart of corn country all of my life. I don't care much about some pictures taken in some unknown time or place. I don't care one way or another if they work corn or not. 
Big dawg: have you walked any corn fields or are you just repeating what you have heard?


----------



## BlueDiamond

Jim & Ian are right - in the upper Midwest, one does not see bees on field corn and it's very rare to see any on soybean blooms. All the pollinator action is on the margins of the corn and soy fields like this: https://imageshack.com/a/img834/3415/fsth.jpg
https://imageshack.com/a/img211/3637/b0go.jpg


----------



## WLC

"...in the upper Midwest, one does not see bees on field corn and it's very rare to see any on soybean blooms..."

Well that does it. They're just going to have to move southeast until they do! 
:lookout:


----------



## WLC

Some fun facts:

"Around 80 million acres of land are planted to corn, with the majority of the crop grown in the Heartland region."

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/background.aspx

"Soybeans in the U.S. are planted on approximately 72 million acres ..."

http://www.wishh.org/aboutsoy/ussoyproduction.html

When you compare the acreage of the above to almonds...

"And with almond acreage increasing steadily in recent years, the bees must now pollinate 760,000 acres (307,500 hectares) of trees."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...13/0216/Fewer-bees-in-US-threaten-almond-crop

It looks like you would need about 100 times the number of hives that are currently in the US.


----------



## melliferal

Ian said:


> That is the best way to get GMO's off the market place, if consumers quit buying them





WLC said:


> We all know that's not going to happen.


Don't be so sure.

Why is there no GMO wheat currently used in food products? The stuff is around - and it hasn't been shown to be dangerous or toxic in any way. So what gives?

What gives is that it's not commercially available. Nobody will buy it, so nobody goes to the trouble of growing and stocking seed. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

Why is there no GMO wheat currently used in food products?

All wheat is a GMO product. That is right, 100% of it. Wheat is a man made plant created by some accidental and amazingly complex genetic engineering. There never was any such thing as a wheat plant in the wild.


----------



## BigDawg

Breeding and genetic modification are two VERY different things. GMO's are only able to be created in a lab using very sophisticated techniques to force the DNA of one organism into the DNA of another organism. GMO's do NOT occur outside of a laboratory....


----------



## WLC

Uhh...

There are accidents that do occur in plants, and of course, there are transposable elements as well.

But in general, I think that we can say that selective breeding is sufficiently different enough from recombinant DNA technology that we can tell the difference.

We do know the exact sequence that we're putting into an organism for instance.

Hybridizers of the past didn't use DNA guns.


----------



## yankee joe

25 years ago there was still a lot of feral bees spread across the us. There were feral hives (bee trees)in every fence row and wood lot. The commercial bees were in completion with there feral cousins.( Bees would forage any source of nectar). Bees were every where. You could not walk through the lawn clover on a sunny summer morning in your bare feet with out getting stung. There are no true feral bees any more. Varroa came in at the most opportune time to take the blame for there demise. Varroa gets a small portion of the credit in my book but not all!!!!! Wild bees left on there own will learn to live with varroa just as the Russian bee has done, but they can never survive the pesticide or GMO war. More chemicals may prolong there existence but the end will come.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

BigDawg said:


> Breeding and genetic modification are two VERY different things. GMO's are only able to be created in a lab using very sophisticated techniques to force the DNA of one organism into the DNA of another organism. GMO's do NOT occur outside of a laboratory....


I suppose that is why 30% of the DNA in cattle came directly from snakes? Sorry BigDawg but until you are ready to talk to me about how the Gibb's free energy difference between the enol and keto forms of adenine governs T->C errors I suggest you not try to tell me anything about genetics or what can happen in nature vs what can happen in the lab. You see, I could teach a grad level course in genetics and you clearly know nothing about the topic. You do not even know how unsophisticated a gene gun is! A gene gun it a gun. It is pure brutal. Nothing sophisticated about it at all.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> ... Randy Oliver so much, his back ground in agriculture proves to be very useful


 sorry - marine biology, we discussed it somewhere on beesource - search the original link. 

"He holds a B.S. in Biological Sciences from U.C. Irvine and a M.S. in Fisheries Biology from Humboldt State University."
http://projectapism.org/content/blogcategory/109/29/


----------



## WLC

Richard:

I just got back another batch of sequences. So...

There is a difference between manmade, instant transgenic evolution, evolution occurring over millions of years, and selective breeding. 

As for a gene gun, it worked remarkably well for something so unsophisticated.


----------



## Richard Cryberg

WLC said:


> Richard:
> 
> 
> There is a difference between manmade, instant transgenic evolution, evolution occurring over millions of years, and selective breeding.
> 
> As for a gene gun, it worked remarkably well for something so unsophisticated.


As we learn more and more about genetics the line between what we do in the lab and what nature has done in the field is becoming smaller. Right now nature is way ahead of the lab. Take wheat for instance. Wheat is a man made species that never existed wild. We do know from the lab what nature did to make wheat in conjunction with man domesticating various grass plants. But we today could not do in the lab what man plus nature did and recreate wheat. Probably the very best we could do in the lab would be to create another new species similar to, but not the same as, wheat. In general our ability to create new species in the lab today is limited to bacteria with only a few exceptions. And bloody simple bacteria at that.

My example of cattle having 30% of their DNA coming directly from snakes is fact. Next time anyone eats a steak remember that 30% of the DNA in that steak came directly from snakes. This was a transpecies movement of DNA done by nature. No breeding by man involved at all. 

In fact the human genome is loaded with DNA that is foreign also. Again the result of nature taking DNA from non human sources and stuffing it into the human genome.

I agree with you 100% that the gene gun works amazingly well. On the surface it is surprising to me that anyone even tried such a brutal technique.

I look forward to the day someone (government, university, private company, whoever - I do not care) does some genetic stuff with bees. At least generate a good SNP map or equivalent so we can start to do some serious genetic selection and perhaps even gene transplantation. At least get us up close to the level of understanding we have with cattle. Right now we know more about pigeons than we know about bees thanks in large part to China. Prices do have to drop a bit first I realize. The business of doing blind breeding studies is dark ages stuff. It works but is grindingly slow working and misses more advances than it captures.


----------



## WLC

Uhhh...

Richard...

The Honeybee Genome has already been sequenced. I think that they're already on the fourth build or so.

There's alot of genome, transcriptome, proteome, epigenome, methylome, and other ome work that has already been done.

In fact, Gene Robinson is now working with Monsanto. So...

Don't ask about Remebee. I say it was a transgenic agent.


----------



## melliferal

WLC said:


> Hybridizers of the past didn't use DNA guns.


They also didn't use jet planes for travel.

However, I suspect that if they'd had access to DNA guns, the hybridizers of the past would've loved them and used them at every opportunity. Why would you actually want to slog through countless Punnett square combinations to get what you ultimately want, when you can select immediately and exclusively?


----------



## JRG13

melliferal,

RR wheat was shelved as the growers so little benefit from it. Winter wheat doesn't need much weed control the way it's managed for the most part. I've seen bees in corn, heard the fields buzzing at times even but for whatever reason, hard pressed to see them on tassles but you do occasionally, but the way the fields sounded I thought it'd be easy. The main issue is they have no reason to visit the silks to actually pollinate in my opnion.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Even if Varroa was defeated and CCD did not exist, we would still likely be bombarded with hype about an imminent pollinator shortages from some university professors and the anti-pesticide groups. Evidence: Look at this July 13, 2001 article (before the era of neonic seed treatments and before GMO crops were widely planted): http://www.panna.org/legacy/panups/panup_20010713.dv.html

Pollinator Declines Could Increase Food Prices July 13, 2001

"A global shortage of bees and other insects that pollinate plants is destroying crops around the world and could lead to far higher prices for fruits and vegetables, according to researchers at the University of Guelph, Canada. "The consumers are ultimately going to pay," said Dr. Peter Kevan, an environmental biology professor at the university. "Instead of buying an apple for 30¢, you'll end up paying $1.50 for it." Pollinator populations have been hit hard by increased pesticide use in recent years, and much of their natural habitat, such as dead trees and old fence posts, have been destroyed to make room for more farmland, Dr. Kevan added.


----------



## cg3

delete


----------



## WLC

Did anyone catch Monsanto's recent Honey Bee Advisory Council?

They figured out that Varroa is the biggest threat to beekeeping. 

Of course, it took over 100 people to figure that one out.:lpf:

PR overkill perhaps?

They should have had something better to announce at the HBAC, like a solution to the neonic contaminated talc problem. OR, an actual cure to Varroa.

So, as far as 'hype' goes, the 'Captain Obvious' award goes to the HBAC.

BD, it's not hype if an entire continent just banned neonic seeds.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> BD, it's not hype if an entire continent just banned neonic seeds.


I find it interesting how different societies perceive and accept risk. Much of Europe, for whatever the reason, has chosen to err on the side of safety with neonic seed treatments yet on safety issues where personal freedom is affected such as public smoking, alcohol consumption (even moderate amounts by pregnant women), and even speed limits and traffic laws in general are all issues that Europeans seem willing to assume much more risk. High "carbon taxes" yet no low sulphur diesel fuel. I am not quite sure what all this says except that in many ways Europeans see things much differently than Americans.


----------



## BlueDiamond

European countries also get about 15-45% of their electricity from nuclear power plants - in France the figure is 75% from 56 nuke plants. Hungary banned Monsanto's GMO crops, yet they get 47% of their power from 4 nuke plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> ... in many ways Europeans see things much differently than Americans.


 Bees are important part of European culture and Europeans are concerned. If people concerned, the governments responded. Make sense to me. In US such approach just does not work because we have "representative" democracy - somebody represents your interests. Usually large corporations are more efficient in "representing" our interests. I guess, the believe is that ordinary American is not capable properly represent him/herself 

As for quality of EU life standards - they are very good in many areas. They do regulate black carbon - permitted amount is 10x less than in US. Black carbon is a carcinogen in EU and a "potential carcinogen" in US. As for sulfur - please, keep in mind that Europeans do not use much trucks and coal. They use an electric engines on railroad to move things - much less diesel emission than in US.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> European countries also get about 15-45% of their electricity from nuclear power plants...


 It is true, but you forgot to mention that biggest EU economy, Germany is banning all its nuclear plants and right now use 20-25% its electricity from renewable sources.
"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012... In 2011 20.5% (123.5 TWh) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany


----------



## WLC

BD:

I'm still not convinced that the HBAC accomplished anything substantive.

Besides a few other announcements, they planted 450 acres for native pollinators?

But, 80 million acres of corn and 70 million acres of soybeans, mostly GM, dwarf that and don't seem to be attractive to bees either managed or native.

The HBAC looks like a PR gimmick that's a dollar short and a day late in comparison to the EU ban.

When they do finally do something meaningful, perhaps I'll be more impressed.


----------



## cg3

We should be looking at the European ban as a good opportunity to maybe settle the issue without impacting our farmers unneccesarily.


----------



## WLC

Do you mean if Honeybee and pollinator health aren't improved in the EU, then the neonic seed ban would be proven unnecessary?

That's possible.

Although there was the neonic maize ban in Italy, were Honeybee colony losses saw a large drop.

Regardless, it's a classic environmental vs economic contest.


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> Do you mean if Honeybee and pollinator health aren't improved in the EU, then the neonic seed ban would be proven unnecessary? That's possible.


It's not physically possible for the european ban to improve bee health because incidents of bee exposure to dust coming off corn seeds as they’re being planted are very rare (e.g. two reported possible incidents in Minnesota this spring out of thousands of corn planting operations in the State).

Dave Fischer from Bayer explains:
http://vegetablegrowersnews.com/ind...nicotinoid-insecticides-blamed-for-bee-deaths

"Foraging bees have been exposed if seeds weren’t treated properly, or in unusual environmental conditions such as dust coming off corn seeds as they’re being planted. Such incidents have occurred in Europe, Canada and the United States, but they’re very rare, especially considering the millions of acres of treated seeds that are planted every year, Fischer said. “There’s been only a handful of confirmed incidents after all these years,” he said.


----------



## WLC

BD:

Let's make believe that the EU ban is for real, and not some kind of political ploy.

The outcomes are:

Bee health is restored and EU agriculture is unharmed,

Bee health is restored, and EU agriculture suffers,

Bee health is unaffected, and EU agriculture is unaffected,

Both bee health and EU agriculture suffer.

I count three ways to lose, and only one way to win.

If I were the EU, I would have asked for a neonic talc fix.

They're taking quite a risk with the ban.


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> sorry - marine biology, we discussed it somewhere on beesource - search the original link.
> 
> "He holds a B.S. in Biological Sciences from U.C. Irvine and a M.S. in Fisheries Biology from Humboldt State University."
> http://projectapism.org/content/blogcategory/109/29/


I was referring to his background in agriculture, you know, the good old actual out there and doing it background


----------



## WLC

I'm wondering if he pointed out that it would be far better for both farmers and beekeepers if GM crops were attractive to bees (and other livestock).

I mean, if you're a farmer and a beekeeper, it seems a shame to plant a crop that your bees can't pollinate.

However, there are crop strains that are pollinator friendly. Too bad that they're not GM.


----------



## Ian

I grow canola, wheat, corn, barley, 
I pull honey off my canola, 
how exactly are you suggesting I get honey off these other crops? if they were GM?? I dont grow crops for my bees, I grow crops to make a lively hood, the honey comes secondary


----------



## WLC

The idea being to help pollinators and increase yields.

No soybeans/double cropping?

So, Monsanto forms the HBAC, and all they have to show is 450 acres (probably CRP) of wildflowers for pollinators?

But there's over 150 million acres of GM crops?

Somethings wrong with the whole approach.

By the way, did you ever locate GM soybeans that could support Honeybees?


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> I grow canola, wheat, corn, barley, ..


 All GM?


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> All GM?


no, just the canola, and all the corn
we use it in during the canola rotation to clean the land for the other two years of our rotation
we use it in the corn so that we do not need to row crop the land anymore and we save countless dollars not having to buy the traditional corn spray or pre seeding land treatments. Now its just sow the crop, spray in two weeks, and send the combine months later. I often wonder if people actually realize how much easier on the land growing corn has become


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> By the way, did you ever locate GM soybeans that could support Honeybees?


did not know I was looking for such, 
do you realize that most of our field crops require very little pollinator support if any? Small insect does some, but wind is the biggest source of pollination on the prairies.
Having bees on a canola field will increase the yield by 3-5%, and there is no real hard data behind that because of the enormous amount of variability.


----------



## Axtmann

I think it will take only a few more years and you must eat your own GM products. No other country will have it anymore.


----------



## Ian

North America sells canola by the boat load into Europe currently used for Bio Diesel, so that the canola grown domestically can be used directly for consumption. I would suggest Europes canola oil market heavily influenced by GM canola, as its all the GM canola that is keeping thier own domestically grown oil affordable, 

I predict the opposite, as food prices increase over the years, more markets are going to open up to GM products as people start to accept 20 years of research and start think with their wallets

like I said, nearly 20 years of use, in Canada, and no, absolutely no detrimental effect on ourselves or the environment


----------



## BayHighlandBees

also seems like it would clean the mites only off of the field bees, but do little of anything with the nurse bees and the brood (where the mites cycle)



Ian said:


> from the opening link ;
> >>>Only a closer look shows the immense benefits of this innovation. The plastic strip is coated in chemicals. Whenever a bee passes through the gate, it touches the edge. This transfers a mite poison (acaricide) to the bee and kills any mites it may be carrying. The substance needs to be permanently available on the surface of the strip so that protection can last for several weeks. <<<
> 
> Whats the chances of any pollen making it into the hive through this gadget? or worst, when the bees get the pollen through, it will be nicely treated with its chemical agent,...


----------



## BayHighlandBees

WLC, I'm guessing that you don't realize that field corn is a specific kind of corn. I sugest you should bite into an ear of it to appreciate the difference!


----------



## BayHighlandBees

BigDawg said:


> Breeding and genetic modification are two VERY different things. GMO's are only able to be created in a lab using very sophisticated techniques to force the DNA of one organism into the DNA of another organism. GMO's do NOT occur outside of a laboratory....


yea, they do. Big Dawg, you are a Genetically Modified Organism. Anything or anyone that has had a viral infection has had their DNA fused with genes from another organism.


----------



## WLC

BHB:

Do you mean the difference between flour, flint, and dent corn?

I did have a chance to read up on Reid's Yellow Dent field corn.

It's a field corn that's popular with organic farmer types.

Even though it's a non GM, heritage type of corn, without the same yield as GM varieties, it's far more nutritious than GM, and livestock will eat the stalk down to the ground.

I do read 'Mother Earth News' since someone gives me recent issues. They mention Beesource and Mike Bush in 'ask our experts'.

You might like the article "Overfed, and Undernourished: nutrient deficiency in our modern diet".

They mention a conspiracy by industrial agriculture and the food industry. 

Hey, if bees won't touch it...


----------



## BigDawg

Interesting article: http://ecowatch.com/2013/buzz-off-monsanto/ introduces the term "bee-washing" into the vernacular.......


----------



## WLC

BigDawg:

I saw the article as well.

I liked the use of the new term "Bee Washing" to describe what Monsanto's HBAC is all about.

In fact, I may call a few folks out as 'Bee Washers'.

Here's an article that thinks that the blame needs to be shared by Dupont:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/inve...Is-Monsanto-Evil-But-DuPont-Isn-t-4610976.php

That's a new tactic.


----------



## Squidink

Very interesting read and good comments!


----------



## jim lyon

I concur, that is an excellant read.........WLC


----------



## Daniel Y

Interesting article. But once again I see the misleading or pointing the finger at everyone else that is so consistent in the defense of Monsanto. For the most part the entire article is saying. See others make mistakes also. Monsanto is not accused of making mistakes. They are accused of not caring and in fact lying and covering up mistakes. now they have another product that is being accused of causing harm and are doing the exact same thing. This is not a new incarnation of an old company. it is the same old same old. profit driven deceptive clone of anything else this company has been. and in that is the difference.

Monsanto should not be allowed to be a part of it's own defense. they are liars. and everyone that cares to know that will know that. They need to shut up and be tried. So it has nothing to do with a company making a product that turned out to be harmful. it is about a company that made a product knowing it was harmful and then adamantly denying that it was even after the fact. Monsanto is not trusted because they have soundly demonstrated they are untrustworthy.


----------



## jim lyon

Daniel Y said:


> Monsanto should not be allowed to be a part of it's own defense. they are liars. and everyone that cares to know that will know that. They need to shut up and be tried.


This has actually been tried in some countries throughout history with varying degrees of success.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> This has actually been tried in some countries throughout history with varying degrees of success.


Do you mean all-EU ban for Monsanto/Bayer products?


----------



## WLC

Sergey:

Don't be too sure about European politics.

My read is that it's a power play by a technocrat lawyer.

Very, very smart. $$$


----------



## cerezha

WLC said:


> .. it's a power play by a technocrat lawyer....


 Why?


----------



## WLC

Uhhh...

Both my ex-boss and my brother's best man were pardoned by the same president, in the same year, for unrelated offenses. And, they didn't even know each other.

I know it when I see it.

Monsanto was ready for the ban.


----------



## BlueDiamond

I like Allen Dick's post today on Monsanto in which he basically says the company's products have done no harm to bee except to reduce the amount of available forage within the crops. 
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A2=ind1306&L=BEE-L&D=1&O=D&P=192152

But due to public demand for their crops, farmers have been striving to clean up their fields of weeds for decades to help boost yields. Monsanto simply provides the tools farmers need to get the job done. It is wrong to attack the toolmaker when the toolmaker is not the source of the problem. The intensification of agricultural practices is a response to public demand for more foodstuffs and biofuels.


----------



## WLC

BD:

It's not that they didn't do astonishing things with the technology.

It's that they left out a 'trump card'.

Pollinators. Both managed and native.

Big, big, mistake.

It's a yield/acreage issue that will bite them (you know where) as producers continue to consoliidate.


----------



## BigDawg

jim lyon said:


> This has actually been tried in some countries throughout history with varying degrees of success.


They didn't do so well in Anniston, Alabama: $700 million in fines (one of the largest in US history) for lying to the public there for decades about the safety of PCB's.


----------



## BigDawg

BlueDiamond said:


> But due to public demand for their crops, farmers have been striving to clean up their fields of weeds for decades to help boost yields. Monsanto simply provides the tools farmers need to get the job done. It is wrong to attack the toolmaker when the toolmaker is not the source of the problem. The intensification of agricultural practices is a response to public demand for more foodstuffs and biofuels.


And yet Monsanto has a long history of lying to the public and to government regulators about the safety of their products (PCB's, Dioxin, etc). Additionally, many people would argue that GMO's are a technology in search of a problem--not the other way around. Do GMO's help pollinators like bees? Do GMO's taste better? Last longer? Cost less? More nutritious? The answer of course is no, they don't/aren't. The only thing they really excel at is selling proprietary seed and pesticides.


----------



## Ian

BigDawg said:


> Do GMO's help pollinators like bees? Do GMO's taste better? Last longer? Cost less? More nutritious? The answer of course is no, they don't/aren't. The only thing they really excel at is selling proprietary seed and pesticides.


GMO crops were developed to help manage weeds and with a few crops, pests. If the produce tasted better, lasted longer, and was more nutritious, would you accept them then?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Do GMO's help pollinators like bees?


 A monoculture of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa would sure help bees if the farmers would wait a week or two after the beginning of bloom to cut it.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

BigDawg said:


> They didn't do so well in Anniston, Alabama: $700 million in fines (one of the largest in US history) for lying to the public there for decades about the safety of PCB's.


Big Dawg, I believe you are confusing Monsanto the chemical company from Monsanto the farm ag company. The farm ag company was a child spin off from the chemical company. PCB's weren't something that the farm ag was ever involved in (before or after the spinoff) so I don't think it is relevant to tie PCB's into the discussion of Monsanto the farm ag company. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Spin-offs_and_mergers


----------



## BigDawg

The spin-off of the chemical side was done in 1997, long after the GMO's, glyphosate, and neonicotinoids that are effecting bees, were brought to market. This was just a legal and PR move to try and shed the bad image that Monsanto had developed over the years as well as to try and avoid legal culpability over their horrible record on PCB's, DDT, etc. But in 2000, the "New Monsanto" assumed the legal liabilities of the "Old Monsanto" when Pharmacia mandated that the New Monsanto assume legal responsibility for Solutia, the company the Old Monsanto tried to dump all of their PCB and Dioxin problems onto. The bottom line is that the players, the mentality, and the outcomes remain the same no matter what green, fuzzy, "feed the world" kind of spin that Monsanto tries to put on it.



BayHighlandBees said:


> Big Dawg, I believe you are confusing Monsanto the chemical company from Monsanto the farm ag company. The farm ag company was a child spin off from the chemical company. PCB's weren't something that the farm ag was ever involved in (before or after the spinoff) so I don't think it is relevant to tie PCB's into the discussion of Monsanto the farm ag company.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Spin-offs_and_mergers


----------



## BayHighlandBees

but the farm ag company doesn't even deal with industrial chemicals. Only the agricultural chemicals business was carried forward in the spinoff.

Lots of companies were involved in PCB's back in the day. Even "green" general electric has their hands dirty in that regard.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

I feel like we keep going into a critique on monsanto's 100 year history. Slander the company all you want. I really don't care, but we really should be talking about the new varoa mite solutions.


----------



## WLC

Which new Varroa mite solutions?


----------



## BigDawg

Slander would be making false statements with intent to defame. Monsanto's atrocious safety and environmental record is there for all to see--if you care to do a few quick searches on the web. Of course, they'd very much like it if we'd forget their past, but given their well-documented history of lying about the safety of their products, I believe very little of what they say. Their new effort to work on varroa mite solutions only came up after the EU announced the ban on neonics, so it's not like they've been concerned about bees all along....



BayHighlandBees said:


> I feel like we keep going into a critique on monsanto's 100 year history. Slander the company all you want. I really don't care, but we really should be talking about the new varoa mite solutions.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

so lets talk about mite treatments


----------



## cerezha

If Monsanto will follow its own tradition, they will offer first a poison to kill mites. Poison shall affect bees as well. Than, Monsanto will create GM-bees with resistance to the poison. Bees will be patented and beekeepers shall buy bees every year and destroy them at the end of the season (similar to Monsanto seeds policy, unused seeds must be destroyed) and buy new bees next year. This, everybody will recognize as a huge improvement in beekeeping because it shall eliminate wintering and all associated with this troubles. Also, Monsanto will punish anybody on who's territory Monsanto's patented bee-swarm could come... 

By the way, since poison will get into the wax and therefore into the honey - Monsanto will push FDA to declare that honey is not healthy to human consumption and we must use corn syrup from Monsanto's GM-corn instead. Victory - Monsanto will save the bees and us!


----------



## Lauri

I hate getting into a thread about Monsanto. Too controversial. You can't convince pro GMO folks ( Although I have never actually Met one in person, just folks anonymously singing Monsanto's praises on the Internet) and it invites harsh and degrading comments.

Some commercial farmers will also be pro Monsanto, but isn't there is a conflict of interest in their opinions? Someone who makes their living with a product cannot be expected to be against it or at least be Publicly against it and therefore probably cannot be considered non partial.

We are all quite ignorant when talking about Monsanto and companies that are similar. Just like the government, we have no real idea what is going on behind closed doors. Media coverage is biased and censored...

Average shmucks that just want to err on the side of caution when it comes to our health are attacked as being ignorant and against advances in agricultural development.

But remember.. All opinions of Monsanto aside...

He who control the worlds food supply, controls the world. 
Monsanto's controlling efforts ( And others) to control seed DNA and invoke more productive farming methods VIA :GMO and neonicitinoids is just part of the picture. Since many fruits and vegie's are dependant on the honeybee for successful pollination, it doesn't surprise me they are getting into developing a way to control them too. 

Beware though. 
How quickly farmers have come to depend on Round up ready crops, etc. How quickly folks have become dependant on technology, such as cell phones and Internet. . 
In my opinion, dependence can lead to possible control and manipulation. 
Take it away and there would be a disaster. It is the _Dependence_ I worry about. Not so much the product.
Even if the product was determined to be harmful to human health or the environment, it may become or already has already become 'Too big to fail'. 

Getting rid of Varroa sounds like a dream come true. Just consider the consequences if beekeepers come to quickly depend on that method... and it is taken away. 
Taken away by means of patent infringement and the inability to pay...or because it was not tested thoroughly and had unintended consequences.


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> If Monsanto will follow its own tradition, they will offer first a poison to kill mites. Poison shall affect bees as well. Than, Monsanto will create GM-bees with resistance to the poison. Bees will be patented and beekeepers shall buy bees every year and destroy them at the end of the season (similar to Monsanto seeds policy, unused seeds must be destroyed) and buy new bees next year. This, everybody will recognize as a huge improvement in beekeeping because it shall eliminate wintering and all associated with this troubles. Also, Monsanto will punish anybody on who's territory Monsanto's patented bee-swarm could come...
> 
> By the way, since poison will get into the wax and therefore into the honey - Monsanto will push FDA to declare that honey is not healthy to human consumption and we must use corn syrup from Monsanto's GM-corn instead. Victory - Monsanto will save the bees and us!


Unused seed must be destroyed? Where did you hear that?


----------



## WLC

"Bees will be patented and beekeepers shall buy bees every year and destroy them at the end of the season (similar to Monsanto seeds policy, unused seeds must be destroyed) and buy new bees next year. "

That could work as long as it is subsidized like the rest of agriculture!


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> Unused seed must be destroyed? Where did you hear that?


ya, just like all the rest of the mis information floating around this post, Un used seeds do not have to be destroyed....


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> Unused seed must be destroyed? Where did you hear that?


"When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they *will not save and replant seeds * produced from the seed they buy from us. More than 275,000 farmers a year buy seed under these agreements in the United States.... Sometimes however, we are forced to resort to lawsuits. This is a relatively rare circumstance, with 145 lawsuits filed since 1997 in the United States... " from Monsanto with love:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

My assumption was that if excess of seeds may not be used, it should be destroyed to comply with Monsanto's policy, otherwise, Monsanto could suspect that seeds are saved for future use.... I apologize if I misrepresent Monsanto's policy.

"Usually, cases come to us when someone reports they believe seed is being saved illegally. Monsanto’s attorneys look into these allegations and may have a licensed private investigator look into the facts..." http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/saved-seed-farmer-lawsuits.aspx


----------



## Ian

"will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us"

The seed and the production from that seed is the producers, and is always the producers as it sits as inventory in the bin, but as soon as that producer tries to use that production as seed, it becomes property of the company, 

anyone who knows anything about the use of hybrids, would understand that in it self deters producers from using second generation seed


----------



## jim lyon

Sergey: Patented seed is really expensive. No one destroys it nor does anyone buys lots more of it than they need. How much you need is a relatively simple mathematical calculation. Unopened bags would normally be returned for a credit. Saving and reusing excess seed isnt a good farming practice because a somewhat higher rate would have to be planted in the next year to account for a lower anticipated germination.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> Sergey: Patented seed is really expensive. No one destroys it nor does anyone buys lots more of it than they need. How much you need is a relatively simple mathematical calculation. Unopened bags would normally be returned for a credit. Saving and reusing excess seed isnt a good farming practice because a somewhat higher rate would have to be planted in the next year to account for a lower anticipated germination.


Jim, Thank you for clarification. My point was that in my hypothetical scenario, Monsanto would follow the same intellectual property patent law restricting re-use of GM-bees. Thus, beekeepers would be obligated to buy bees every year. So far, Monsanto has been succeeded implementing this policy. I do not see any reason why they should change their practice if they in fact will create a GM-bee? It is complete speculation - I responded to the BayHighlandBees suggestion to talk about mites 

I am not aware that the same patent policy is implemented to F1 hybrids. Obviously, F1 seeds in second generation will produce only small fraction of the original "F1". It is classical Mendel's genetics. It is not applied (genetics) directly to GMOs.


----------



## Barry

cerezha said:


> Monsanto would follow the same intellectual property patent law restricting re-use of GM-bees.


Please explain how you see this working. A seed is stationery, a bee isn't. A seed doesn't crossbreed with other seeds, a bee does.


----------



## WLC

Uhh...

Bees AND pollen...


----------



## jim lyon

cerezha said:


> Obviously, F1 seeds in second generation will produce only small fraction of the original "F1". It is classical Mendel's genetics. It is not applied (genetics) directly to GMOs.


I am not talking about planting second generation hybrid corn which would be not just illegal but pretty stupid as well. I was referring to the fact that as any seed ages it's germination rate decreases. Seed companies do resell older carryover seed inventory but must recertify it's germination rate each year.


----------



## Ian

jim lyon said:


> I am not talking about planting second generation hybrid corn which would be not just illegal but pretty stupid as well.


and that is why this point is pretty much a non issue to farmers, 
most only hold the objection to its principle


----------



## cerezha

Barry said:


> Please explain how you see this working. A seed is stationery, a bee isn't. A seed doesn't crossbreed with other seeds, a bee does.


 It is not about seeds or bees, it is about general approach regarding GMOs. Monsanto's approach is that GMO may not be re-used for reproduction - every year farmer must buy a new GMOs. Even GMo from the previous season are not permitted to use. This Monsanto's approach was supported in US courts many times. Thus, the model is viable. Since, the approach works beautifully for Monsanto, my guess is that they would use it for other GMOs. Bees are no difference: you would require to buy GM-bees from Monsanto every year. The trick is that in order to obtain patented GMO, you need to sign a contract with Monsanto - this contract will determine what is proper and what is not. If you do not fulfil contract's obligations, you will be sued (successfully) by Monsanto. It is not my invention - it is just Monsanto policy.


----------



## camero7

cerezha said:


> It is not about seeds or bees, it is about general approach regarding GMOs. Monsanto's approach is that GMO may not be re-used for reproduction - every year farmer must buy a new GMOs. Even GMo from the previous season are not permitted to use. This Monsanto's approach was supported in US courts many times. Thus, the model is viable. Since, the approach works beautifully for Monsanto, my guess is that they would use it for other GMOs. Bees are no difference: you would require to buy GM-bees from Monsanto every year. The trick is that in order to obtain patented GMO, you need to sign a contract with Monsanto - th5s c6ntract w643d deter05ne what s pr6per and what 5s n6t


Pure fantasy


----------



## cerezha

camero7 said:


> Pure fantasy


 Absolutely! Do you have a better idea? Please, share.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> I am not talking about planting second generation hybrid corn which would be not just illegal but pretty stupid as well. I was referring to the fact that as any seed ages it's germination rate decreases. Seed companies do resell older carryover seed inventory but must recertify it's germination rate each year.


 Strange. In Russia, we used to use corn seed for years - if they even just 80% good, what is the problem? Just plant 20% more. If I recall properly, people find corn seeds in Pharaoh pyramids and grow plants from them ...3 thousand years later. Also, there is seed-bank in case of nuclear "winter" somewhere up north, in Iceland (?) - they are planning to keep seeds for decades... I am sure they have a corn as well. Native Indians and many others store/use/plant corn/mase...


----------



## Ian

Jim is absolutely right on that, 

Sergey, we use our own wheat, barley and oats for seed, cleaned from the previous years crop. We do an on farm germ test to ensure proper germination before the seed is sent to the cleaners. 
Last year we had bought some Oat seed from a local dealer, which turned out to be old seed, 2-3 years old. We were un aware of the seeds age and bought it with the understanding of a 90% or higher germ test. He did not do that germ test, our crop did not come up, he was liable for the cost of the seed.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Bees AND pollen...


Ah, what's your point?


----------



## WLC

Both pollen form GM plants, and seeds (spilled from trucks) have been known to contaminate organic crops.

As for GM bees...

I've already pointed out that Remebee is a transgene vector and goes off target.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> ...Sergey, we use our own wheat, barley and oats for seed, cleaned from the previous years crop. We do an on farm germ test to ensure proper germination before the seed is sent to the cleaners.
> Last year we had bought some Oat seed from a local dealer, which turned out to be old seed, 2-3 years old. We were un aware of the seeds age and bought it with the understanding of a 90% or higher germ test. He did not do that germ test, our crop did not come up, he was liable for the cost of the seed.


 It is great! You should continue doing so and than, may be you do not need Monsanto? The biggest danger of the GM-products - it depletes the bio-diversity and alternates/contaminates the genome(s) of the non-GM creatures. It is just a crime. If I remember correctly, nearly all ancient, local maize in SoAmerica is contaminated with Monsanto genes these days. That maize was there couple of thousand years before Monsanto and now it is practically gone.


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> ... must recertify it's germination rate each year.


They teach us in 4th grade how to do so: put 100 seeds between two layers of the filter paper in the vet chamber (our favorite was Petri Dish) and let them germinate. Week later, count how many plants you have = %% of germination. I would suspect that storage conditions are not optimal is seed go bad after just few months of storage.


----------



## BlueDiamond

WLC said:


> Both pollen form GM plants, and seeds (spilled from trucks) have been known to contaminate organic crops.


"Contrary to many statements to the contrary, no organic farm has ever lost organic certification due to accidental contamination from biotech crops. Not once."
http://monsantoblog.com/2009/03/16/organic-cake/


----------



## BayHighlandBees

Sergey,
would it be a good idea to use last year's flu shot or should you get the one targeted for the upcoming season? 




cerezha said:


> It is not about seeds or bees, it is about general approach regarding GMOs. Monsanto's approach is that GMO may not be re-used for reproduction - every year farmer must buy a new GMOs. /QUOTE]


----------



## BayHighlandBees

They had corn in Pharaoh's Africa? I thought it was a native american plant that Columbus brought back to Europe from his trip to the new world? :scratch:

sure, if you put the seeds on ice in an ice vault it will keep (same applies with horse seamen), but anytime I grow old corn seeds, by the third year it's pretty worthless. 



cerezha said:


> Strange. In Russia, we used to use corn seed for years - if they even just 80% good, what is the problem? Just plant 20% more. If I recall properly, people find corn seeds in Pharaoh pyramids and grow plants from them ...3 thousand years later. Also, there is seed-bank in case of nuclear "winter" somewhere up north, in Iceland (?) - they are planning to keep seeds for decades... I am sure they have a corn as well. Native Indians and many others store/use/plant corn/mase...


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> Sergey,
> would it be a good idea to use last year's flu shot or should you get the one targeted for the upcoming season? ...


 Indeed, it is good idea for virus vaccine because virus changed constantly. It is nothing to do with GMOs.


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> They had corn in Pharaoh's Africa?...


 Apparently not:
"There is a persistent myth that seeds from Egyptian tombs with ages of over 3,000 years were viable. The myth was reportedly started by scam artists selling "miracle seed" designed to capitalize on European Egyptomania of the 1800s...In 1922 a pea found in Tutankhamen's tomb supposedly germinated and was soon introduced as a new variety, but historians and horticultural experts believe that the origin was a fraud and that the pea was actually bought from a vendor at a Cairo market." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_viable_seed


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> ...anytime I grow old corn seeds, by the third year it's pretty worthless.


I find this video when searched the Internet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sXEQxQRWJmM
It is unrelated to the bees, sorry


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> It is great! You should continue doing so and than, may be you do not need Monsanto? T


you completely missed the point


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> you completely missed the point


Explain - I am not an agricultural expert and would be interested to learn.


----------



## Ian

seed in our natural environment degrades quickly in time, thanks to our elements, weather, disease and handling. there are seeds that will survive through the generations but those are but a small % of the yearly production. Weed seeds will have nearly 90% of its seeds germinate or degrade within the first 5 years, and the other 10% will last from then til, well, as long as when your grandfather had worked the land.

that was the point I was making to your comment about germination

I understand your point your making with GM bees, but I would have a hard time comparing it to seed production. Seed production is such a controlled environment, and entirely measurable. How would anyone be able to track bees? or the offspring off those queens? or the gererations off those queens? Once sold to the beekeeper, the genetics would be part of the operation til that hive or operation died off.


----------



## BayHighlandBees

cerezha said:


> Indeed, it is good idea for virus vaccine because virus changed constantly. It is nothing to do with GMOs.


virei and pests adapt and mutate. GMO companies and vacine companies will have the same business model. Gear their products to solve the upcoming years potential epidemics.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> ...I understand your point your making with GM bees, but I would have a hard time comparing it to seed production. ...


 See, I did not "invent" it - I just steal idea from Monsanto seeds agreement. It is totally my fantasy ... but with grain of salt. Salt is that Monsanto agreement for seeds may be used for any GMOs because it is about patented intellectual property. In seed-agreement, I believe, Monsanto does not specify what to do with extra seeds or pollen spread on neighbors fields. They just stated that seeds could not be re-used. That's it. The same way, they could state that bees could not be "re-used". Than, once you sign agreement with them, it would be your responsibility to solve the issue. Seeds were used as an example simply because we (thanks God) do not have many other GMOs. At least, I am not aware of them, you?


----------



## cerezha

BayHighlandBees said:


> virei and pests adapt and mutate. GMO companies and vacine companies will have the same business model. Gear their products to solve the upcoming years potential epidemics.


 Interesting point. I do not think that GMOs may be "seasonal" as vaccone. Making GMOs is very difficult process. Also, If it is seeds (or bees) - once created, they need to be grow and multiplied. It takes time. The reason why Monsanto forbid reuse the GMOs is just profit issue - if everybody could grow and multiply GMOs, than Monsanto will lost the profit. Strict implementation the patent-agreements is Monsanto's business model. It is different from many other biotech-models including vaccine-production - once sold, vaccine may not be reproduced because the formulation is a secret. Vaccine also may not be easily multiplied by ordinary consumers of the product.


----------



## WLC

No folks, it doesn't take a long time to make GM bees.

Remebee was a jumping gene derived product that could ,theoretically, make instantly transgenic bees.

It contained a known SINE. All that would be required is the corresponding LINE (with the correct retrotransposase), and it could make instantly transgenic bees. However, it's unlikely that it would be stable. A plus.


----------



## jim lyon

Sorry, I don't know how to link to a PDF document but Eric Mussen has some really interesting info about Monsanto and Remebee in his most recent newsletter which you can easily subscribe to free of charge here: Also some interesting pesticide related info.

Sorry link isnt working. Perhaps search UC Davis/Mussen


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Here is the link to the Mussen article Jim mentions above:
http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/files/168326.pdf

The relevant comments start at the bottom of page 2.


----------



## jim lyon

Thanks, Graham. Perhaps Barry needs to upgrade your title to Resident archiver/link specialist.


----------



## WLC

The newsletter mentions the find that Varroa can take up ds RNA from bees.

That suggests the off target issue that I've mentioned before.


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> See, I did not "invent" it - I just steal idea from Monsanto seeds agreement. It is totally my fantasy ...


yes, it is total fantasy


----------



## Richard Cryberg

cerezha said:


> See, I did not "invent" it -
> 
> Sergey,
> 
> You keep posting pure nonsense. You clearly have very little understanding of agriculture. Planting an extra 25% of seeds because you have an 80% germination rate is not a solution to poor germination for instance. Maybe that is what is done in Russia but is a miserable practice for obvious reasons. Reasons have nothing to do with beekeeping so you figure it out on your own.
> 
> You clearly do not understand how Monsanto runs their business, what the agreements actually state nor who Monsanto has sued. Again, not beekeeping so you figure it out. But until then stop making up facts. That is not intended as a defense of Monsanto. I do not like the company as I have stated in the past for reasons that have nothing to do with their current or past product line.
> 
> Everything you eat is GMO. You will probably never figure that out I suppose. GMO is not new at all. Nature has been in the GMO business for 4 billion years and is very, very good at it. Better than man is in the lab.
> 
> You also use Wikipedia as a source! Kind of incredible. I thought anyone who was a high school grad would realize the only time it is appropriate to use Wikipedia as a source is if the topic of the paper is Wikipedia.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> yes, it is total fantasy


 You have to admit that I have very "creative" fantasy!


----------



## WLC

What about the OSGATA suit?

That wasn't a fantasy, even though they lost.


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> You have to admit that I have very "creative" fantasy!


yes, a very creative fantasy, lol


----------



## cerezha

jim lyon said:


> ... Eric Mussen has some really interesting info about Monsanto and Remebee in his most recent newsletter...


 Indeed, interesting info. I particularly like his passages regarding geo-map showing correlation between applied pesticides and bee loses (if I understood correctly) and that economist predicted bee-industry collapse if beekepers will continue to recover their loses by splitting the colonies (correct me if I am wrong). As for Remebee - it sounded really cool, but there are number of concerns with this approach:
- making RNA is expensive;
- RNA generally is unstable. dsRNA is more stable than single-stranded, but still - the purpose of dsRNA is to be "diced" by a *Dicer*, so it should have a short life
- dsRNA does not induce a real immunity with immune-system involved. Since dsRNA is unnatural, it draws attention at the intracellular level but it is not immunity because it has no memory - once dsRNA disappeared, cell does not remember anymore  and does not provide specific respond.
- it potentially could work against viruses. It does not work against mites - Monsanto will won a Nobel Prize if they figured out how to target the varroa itself with RNAi.
- we need to understand, that Monsanto is not creating the science, they just use (buy) it. Thus, they should wait until somebody will solve varroa problem, probably in academia ... to buy it out ...


----------



## WLC

Let me remind you, there are interntional treaties that prohibit the testing of the very agents that they used in California.

They tested a local CCD strain of IAPV, along with an Isreali derived jumping gene, on Honeybees, in the California Valley, right before almond pollination.

That's why the trial was halted.


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> - it potentially could work against viruses. It does not work against mites -


Thats all we need to be able to control. If we can neutralize the viral infections transferred by the mites, the predictably of mite levels will allow us to make better decision in regards to mite treatments. These viral infections may be the root cause of these massive hive loss reports, as there is no way for beekeepers to measure viral loads or do anything about them other than knocking the mite down


----------



## cerezha

- it potentially could work against viruses... -


Ian said:


> Thats all we need to be able to control. ...


 Ooo
I wish to learn more on bees and their viruses! Unfortunately, my expertise is limited by common biochemistry. Viruses are very flexible and adaptable. Look at influenza - this year vaccine was a disaster - virus outperform all our scientific predictions! How much money have invested in immuno-deficit virus (HIV) or hepatitis-C, but problem if far far away from solving. You eradicate one virus and two new will occupy the niche very quickly. From business-model prospective, it is a "Holy Grail" - selling a specific dsRNA for every strain of the virus in tons! Crazy! From my prospective, it would be more desirable to eliminate the carrier, the mite. Another part of solution is to minimize stress on our bees - it is well-known that stress destroys the immune system (real one). We do not need Monsanto for this.


----------



## Ian

the more angles we look at the problem, the better of a chance we find the solution


----------



## victor miranda

howdy,

I can imagine that Bayer may well want to find a way to control varroa....

when able to chose, honey bees tend to avoid neonics.

the fact is that neonics are in bee hives. 
so the question is what effect is the non-lethal level of neonic having.

If it causes the brood to take longer to develop...
pay attention to that IF. the rest of this stands on it.

Longer capped brood times will mean that varroa can develop at a higher rate
than a hive free of neonics. (drone brood has a reputation for being Varroa preferred)
this will mean the low level of neonics cause varroa to be far more
difficult to manage. 

Under that circumstance it will look like varroa are the cause of
a colony failure.
The real cause for the colony's death is neonics weakening the hive
enough for an oportunistic parasite to finish the job.
various other pathogens could do the same, 
and varroa is common in the USA.

Perhaps this can explain Austrailia's lack of colony colapse.
They have a reputation for not having varroa in their hives.


----------



## BlueDiamond

victor miranda said:


> The real cause for the colony's death is neonics weakening the hive enough for an oportunistic parasite to finish the job. various other pathogens could do the same,
> and varroa is common in the USA. Perhaps this can explain Austrailia's lack of colony colapse. They have a reputation for not having varroa in their hives.


Australia has no colony collapse disorder and no varroa yet it uses alot of neonics. So that's a hint that getting rid of the varroa may solve some of the collony collapse problems.

In the USA, according to Dr. David Fischer with Bayer CropScience http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml "there does seem to be a correlation between recent occurrence of CCD and the presence of residues of Varroa control chemicals. In these situations, hives with lower rates of CCD generally have higher varroacide residue levels. This suggests that beekeepers who are more vigilant in controlling Varroa are less likely to have CCD in their colonies."

So that's a second line of evidence that getting rid of varroa (not getting rid of the neonics) is what's important.


----------



## victor miranda

BlueDiamond said:


> ...So that's a second line of evidence that getting rid of varroa (not getting rid of the neonics) is what's important.


k... this line makes me pretty sure what I said was not clear to you.

getting all bee killing chemicals out of a hive is my goal.
I'll try another way.

in that scanario, the neonics are the reason the varroa are out of control.

one way to control the varroa is to remove the neonics....

victor


----------



## Daniel Y

I will say that in total Victor is making a train a bit longer. From the arguments I have seen in various conversation.
1. it is not Varroa that kill bees. it is the viruses that Varroa make the bees susceptible to.
2. Bees are not prone to being infested with Varroa IF it where not for the Neonics weakening them enough to make them a suitable host.
3. then we all know that neonic are not harmful to bees even though they are a pesticide. because nobody targets bees when they are applied. of course nobody is in the corn field apply nics to corn plants with an eye dropper but we are pretty certain that the mass application methods that it is applied with could not possibly result in contamination of the entire environment. It could not even result in the partial contamination of the environment. Nics have some way of only apply to plant if their is intent involved.

So we have a poison that weakens the bees so they are susceptible to a parasite that infects them with a virus that kills them.

Or we could really stretch our imaginations and think that a pesticide in fact kills an insect.


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> Or we could really stretch our imaginations and think that a pesticide in fact kills an insect.


why is that a stretch ?


----------



## BigDawg

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7FCgF0BwlDGMEV0RU82YmxYQUk/edit


----------



## cerezha

Thank you for the article. I have difficulties to understand how obvious facts may be mass-ignored in US? Before neonics, France had 40-45 kilos of the sunflower honey per hive and it reduced to 22 kilos during the neonics era. In order to compensate loses, the number of hives were doubled during same period of time. Nice correlations. Very simple - there is no need to speculate regarding CCD or Australia.


----------



## BlueDiamond

cerezha said:


> I have difficulties to understand how obvious facts may be mass-ignored in US?.


A couple reasons:

1) Gaucho has been used at a seed treatment on thousands of square miles worth of sunflowers here in the USA for many years without causing serious bee health problems.

2) BigDawg's link did not tell the whole story about the situation in France. This link does: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ga/gaucho__insecticide_.html


----------



## BigDawg

http://www.cbgnetwork.org/355.html

"The summary of the report states: „The results of the examination on the risks of the seeds-treatment GAUCHO are alarming. The treatment of seeds by GAUCHO is a significant risk to bees in several stages of life.” The 108-page report was made by order of the agricultural ministry of France by the universities of Caen and Metz as well as by the Institut Pasteur."

http://www.apiservices.com/articles/us/gaucho/manifestation_paris_us.htm

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

"In November 2010, an EPA document was released, detailing the risks to honeybees from exposure to clothianidin, a neonicotinoid similar to imidacloprid. The EPA document states: "This compound is toxic to honey bees. The persistence of residues and potential residual toxicity of clothianidin in nectar and pollen suggests the possibility of chronic toxic risk to honey bee larvae and the eventual instability of the hive."[45]"

"In 2012, researchers announced findings that sublethal exposure to imidacloprid rendered honey bees significantly more susceptible to infection by the fungus Nosema, thereby suggesting a potential link to CCD.[34] Two research teams led by Jeff Pettis at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Cedric Alaux at INRA/France have demonstrated that interactions between the pathogen Nosema and imidacloprid significantly weaken the immune systems of honeybees (Apis mellifera). In their research, Alaux et al. (2010) found that bees infected with Nosema and exposed to 0.7 ug/kg imidacloprid had an increased rate of mortality compared to the controls. The combination of Nosema and imidacloprid also significantly decreased the activity of glucose oxidase, an important enzyme that allows the bees to sterilize their colony and brood food. Without this enzyme, bees can become more susceptible to infections by pathogens.[35] Both the USDA study and the INRA study demonstrate that a combination of stressors (pesticides and pathogens) may be responsible for the recent high level of bee losses."

"Researchers from Harvard School of Public Health write that new research provides "convincing evidence" of the link between imidacloprid and the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder. Lead author of the study, Chensheng (Alex) Lu, stated that experiments showed a dose of 20 parts per billion of imidacloprid (less than the concentrations bees would encounter while foraging in sprayed crops), was enough to lead to Colony Collapse Disorder in 94% of colonies within 23 weeks.[30][50] The hives were nearly empty and the researchers did not find signs of the Nosema virus or Varroa mites.[51] "


----------



## BlueDiamond

http://www.syngenta.com/eame/plightofthebees/en/bee-research/Pages/research-faqs.aspx

"The allegation that neonicotinoids-based pesticides are inherently damaging to bee colonies or populations is not true. For example, evidence from Scotland shows that there is poor bee health even though there is very low neonicotinoid pesticide use. However, there is a high incidence of the Varroa mite in Scotland which may better explain the poor bee health.

In France, the level of colony losses is similar in mountainous areas to that on agricultural land.

In Australia, neonicotinoid-based seed treatments are used widely but there have been no reports of significant declines in the health of bees. Indeed, many Australian beekeepers have exploited this by sending their bees to countries such as the United States in order to provide contract pollination services. Not surprisingly, the Government of Australia is keen to protect bee health and its prime goal is to concentrate on policies to prevent the Varroa from invading Australia and to have emergency plans for eradicating the Varroa mite should it eventually arrive there.

In Madagascar neonicotinoids are virtually unused but beekeepers have been suffering substantial bee losses since the recent introduction of the Varroa mite in 2009.

In Switzerland, there have been reports of significant declines in bee health in upland areas of the country. Neonicotinoids are not used in these areas and cannot be held responsible.*The Swiss Government reported in the summer of 2012 that pesticides were not the cause of declines in bee health.

South Africa and Brazil both use neonicotinoid-based pesticides widely, yet both countries have good bee health. However, both of these countries have low incidences of the Varroa mite due to the increased presence of the Africanized honey bee which is able to delouse itself.

There is therefore no direct correlation between neonicotinoids use and poor bee health, although a correlation can be drawn between bee losses and the presence of the Varroa mite."


----------



## Daniel Y

Ian said:


> why is that a stretch ?


Really?


----------



## victor miranda

Daniel Y said:


> ...
> 1. it is not Varroa that kill bees.
> ...


there is a line that causes one to pause. 

We have at least one poster in this thread who says varroa are pretty damaging to bee hives....



BlueDiamond said:


> http://www.syngenta.com/eame/plightofthebees/en/bee-research/Pages/research-faqs.aspx
> 
> "The allegation that neonicotinoids-based pesticides are inherently damaging to bee colonies or populations is not true. ..."


which part is not true? the allegation or the pesticide damage? 
I am pretty sure a pesticide like a neonic is inherently damaging to a bee colony...

still, after reading the post I find I am curious about what you would feel is proof.

victor


----------



## BigDawg

Seriously? You're quoting a puff/spin piece put out by Syngenta? Don't you think they might be just a tad biased seeing as they're the number one producer of neonics which is a $3 billion a year product line?

But it's not really a big surprise I guess, seeing as it's pretty obvious you are employed by the pesticide industry...



BlueDiamond said:


> http://www.syngenta.com/eame/plightofthebees/en/bee-research/Pages/research-faqs.aspx
> 
> "The allegation that neonicotinoids-based pesticides are inherently damaging to bee colonies or populations is not true. For example, evidence from Scotland shows that there is poor bee health even though there is very low neonicotinoid pesticide use. However, there is a high incidence of the Varroa mite in Scotland which may better explain the poor bee health.
> 
> In France, the level of colony losses is similar in mountainous areas to that on agricultural land.
> 
> In Australia, neonicotinoid-based seed treatments are used widely but there have been no reports of significant declines in the health of bees. Indeed, many Australian beekeepers have exploited this by sending their bees to countries such as the United States in order to provide contract pollination services. Not surprisingly, the Government of Australia is keen to protect bee health and its prime goal is to concentrate on policies to prevent the Varroa from invading Australia and to have emergency plans for eradicating the Varroa mite should it eventually arrive there.
> 
> In Madagascar neonicotinoids are virtually unused but beekeepers have been suffering substantial bee losses since the recent introduction of the Varroa mite in 2009.
> 
> In Switzerland, there have been reports of significant declines in bee health in upland areas of the country. Neonicotinoids are not used in these areas and cannot be held responsible.*The Swiss Government reported in the summer of 2012 that pesticides were not the cause of declines in bee health.
> 
> South Africa and Brazil both use neonicotinoid-based pesticides widely, yet both countries have good bee health. However, both of these countries have low incidences of the Varroa mite due to the increased presence of the Africanized honey bee which is able to delouse itself.
> 
> There is therefore no direct correlation between neonicotinoids use and poor bee health, although a correlation can be drawn between bee losses and the presence of the Varroa mite."


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Seriously? You're quoting a puff/spin piece put out by Syngenta? Don't you think they might be just a tad biased


What's inaccurate about what Syngenta said? Or what Dr. David Fischer from Bayer said in the post I linked to above? Or what Bayer's bee expert Dick Rogers says:

http://journalstar.com/news/local/m...cle_f1bcd01c-369d-5760-b797-59fa5627480f.html "Bayer bee expert Richard Rogers brushed aside a New York Times article of March 28, 2013 that used the "mystery malady" description in reporting on a problem that has commercial beekeepers on edge."It's never been a mystery to me," Rogers said. Varroa and tracheal mites, the mites' resistance to the chemicals used to treat them, and an array of virus incursions, including the nosema virus, are among the major problems. The added strains on bees from being trucked back and forth between California and the Midwest every year also are taking a toll, Rogers said. "There is no mystery-- period."


----------



## BigDawg

Seems to me that RJ Reynold's (et al) "scientists" said for years that their tobacco products were safe and did not cause cancer. Do believe that those industry-paid scientists were telling the whole story, or, do you think they were being paid to put a favorable spin on their employer's products?



BlueDiamond said:


> What's inaccurate about what Syngenta said? Or what Dr. David Fischer from Bayer said in the post I linked to above? Or what Bayer's bee expert Dick Rogers says:
> 
> http://journalstar.com/news/local/m...cle_f1bcd01c-369d-5760-b797-59fa5627480f.html "Bayer bee expert Richard Rogers brushed aside a New York Times article of March 28, 2013 that used the "mystery malady" description in reporting on a problem that has commercial beekeepers on edge."It's never been a mystery to me," Rogers said. Varroa and tracheal mites, the mites' resistance to the chemicals used to treat them, and an array of virus incursions, including the nosema virus, are among the major problems. The added strains on bees from being trucked back and forth between California and the Midwest every year also are taking a toll, Rogers said. "There is no mystery-- period."


----------



## Ian

Daniel Y said:


> Really?


of course pesticides kill bees
pesticides is only one component of the problem, take that away and our hives are still dying from the rest of the list of hive related problems
by removing one pesticide from the market does not clear up the pesticide issue, another will take its place, you know, the ones that leave piles of dead bees infrount of your hives


----------



## BigDawg




----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Seems to me that RJ Reynold's (et al) "scientists" said for years that their tobacco products were safe and did not cause cancer. Do believe that those industry-paid scientists were telling the whole story, or, do you think they were being paid to put a favorable spin on their employer's products?


What credible real world field study do you know of that shows Dr. David Fischer from Bayer was not telling the whole story when he wrote this?:
"Ultimately, there is no credible scientific evidence demonstrating a link between the use of neonicotinoid insecticides and the occurrence of widespread honey bee colony losses, including CCD."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2012/05/09/pesticide-profits-or-bees-bayer-responds/


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> A couple reasons:
> 
> 1) Gaucho has been used at a seed treatment on thousands of square miles worth of sunflowers here in the USA for many years without causing serious bee health problems.


 BigDawg's link provides balanced "story" with data analysis of honey production in France before and during Gaucho introduction. It has graphs and other materials illustrating the situation. It is very balanced presentation. From another hand, you stated that bees are doing great in US with Gaucho. You use it as an argument, but it is not. You need to provide DATA illustrating your statement. Ideally, it should be in similar format as document provided by BigDawg's. The whole country were involved and you dismiss all their hard work in a moment. Not nice and disrespectful to others hard work.



BlueDiamond said:


> 2) BigDawg's link did not tell the whole story about the situation in France. This link does: http://www.fact-index.com/g/ga/gaucho__insecticide_.html


 It states the same as BigDawg's document - I had read it carefully.


----------



## cerezha

BlueDiamond said:


> ...In Australia, neonicotinoid-based seed treatments are used widely but there have been no reports of significant declines in the health of bees....


I am getting tired from this "argument". We had another thread on this matter at beesource and Australian beekeeper (the real one) presented the official letter from agricultural Ministry (not sure how it was called) stating that in Australia they have smaller apiaries and they *do not* keep bees near treated crops. Apparently, they keep bees in pristine places away from chemicals.


----------



## cerezha

Ian said:


> of course pesticides kill bees
> pesticides is only one component of the problem, take that away and our hives are still dying from the rest of the list of hive related problems
> by removing one pesticide from the market does not clear up the pesticide issue, another will take its place, you know, the ones that leave piles of dead bees infrount of your hives


 It is true, but it does not mean that we shall sit and do nothing. There are some examples how things changed positively in the environment. Also, some chemicals are more dangerous than others. Organic farming proves that it is possible to "produce" produce with minimal chemical treatment and it is getting more and more popular. At some point, people will establish no-chemical zone to grow their produce in peace. Than,they would need "organic" bees to pollinate their organic fields  People could do a lot! For example, my wife's family owned 150 acres piece of land in Santa Rosa mountains, heavily developed area. They decided that this land will never be developed. The location of property is so that it prevents others from development (road). Technically, they are preventing 1000 acres from developing  This is a perfect place for organic farm and my bees when I retired  If people will act together - they won! I am sure, there are other wonderful places, which are chemicals-free.


----------



## Ian

a broad sweeping removal of neonic from the market place to take those "the so called problem makers" off the shelf will also take the other "less talked about" neonics seed treatments off the market resulting in all farmers loosing out on a very effective pest management tool. THEN they turn to aerial and ground broadcasting of more harmful pesticides blanketing the country side trying to salvage a crop every season. 

If there is one bad apple in the basket, lets try to target that bad apple and not throw the whole basket out.


----------



## Dave Burrup

>>Organic farming proves that it is possible to "produce" produce with minimal chemical treatment and it is getting more and more popular. At some point, people will establish no-chemical zone to grow their produce in peace. Than,they would need "organic" bees to pollinate their organic fields <<

Cerezha you must live in a different world than I do if you think organic farming is going to replace conventional farming. We shop in a city of about 60,000 people and there is a large chain grocery that has an organic produce section. Every time we go in I check out the number of people in each section. It is at least 10:1 non-organic over organic. We have a neighbor that farms around us that told me they would go completely organic except there is no one to sell to. He said no body wants the organic crops. The higher production costs for organic lead to higher crop prices that people do not want to pay. Vocal people like you make it sound great but the general public does not care about their health. If they did the market for refined foods, read junk food, would not exist. Do you really think that the pesticides organic farming uses do not kill bees and other beneficials? After all they are pesticides used to control insects.
Dave


----------



## D Coates

cerezha said:


> I am getting tired from this "argument". We had another thread on this matter at beesource and Australian beekeeper (the real one) presented the official letter from agricultural Ministry (not sure how it was called) stating that in Australia they have smaller apiaries and they *do not* keep bees near treated crops. Apparently, they keep bees in pristine places away from chemicals.


Seriously? You believe that? Water is needed for nectar. Where there is water, there is agriculture. Where there is agriculture there are treated crops of some form. You can dream of "pristine" places at night if it helps you sleep but it's only where bigfoot and the chupacabras dance. 

Dismiss it all you want but the argument you are tired of still holds plenty of water.


----------



## WLC

Maybe there are Billabong Beekeepers in Australia?


----------



## cerezha

Dave Burrup said:


> ... Cerezha you must live in a different world than I do if you think organic farming is going to replace conventional farming. ...


 Hi Dave, yes,I am from different world, from non-existing USSR actually  In my country, we used to think, that we are in power and we could make changes if need. For instance, we stopped the entire power-boats operation on Oka-river because those particular boats damaged the ecology, they kill sturgeon eggs and erode the shore. When boats were stopped and perestroika helped (another polluter went out of business) - in 10 years sturgeon is back! River is pristine-clean! In California, people saved Mono-lake: 2 million toilets in LA were replaced on low-water ones and it saved the lake. I do not know about your area, but people in California are very concern regarding quality of their life. In our small city we have 3 or 4 farmers markets and they are full of people - you need to go earlier to get stuff, at noon they sold out. Literally,nobody is going to Albertsons/Vons/etc - everybody where? In "Whole foods" and "Trader Joes." In our city we actually have a problem - too many "Whole foods," they kick small business out. Thus, we do not shop in the "Whole foods." We support our small corner market! It's not only me - many schools have "learning gardens" where kids learn how to grow food without chemicals. In my wife's after school program, kids forbidden to even bring in any Cola or junk-food, instead, they have a healthy food (and pure water) donated by local business. This is for low-income kids. You need to see it: bankers on the bicycles go to work - we have in the downtown a special bike parking facility with lockers and shower. Ciclavia - once a month (we wanted more) we close one of the major LA street for cars and convert it into the bicycle path from Down-Town LA to the beech - literally, millions people attended. People grow their own vegetables... many good things are happening just right now and my point is that everyone should support these good tendencies.


----------



## cerezha

D Coates said:


> Seriously? You believe that? Water is needed for nectar. Where there is water, there is agriculture. Where there is agriculture there are treated crops of some form. ..


 Are you from Australia? You know better than Australians? I would like to see a comments from people who is living in Australia. Also -could you explain, how we have so many bees in the desert? Mohave desert is full of bees in spring. I believe, Texas and New Mexico have plenty of bees in the deserty areas.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Cerezha you living in California explains a lot! Only about 1% of agriculture is organic. Demand is what dictates what is produced. If there was as much demand as you think we would have a lot more than 1% of the land in agriculture. I have messed with organics for nearly 40 years. Yield and quality suffer tremendously. I can produce more for less money and effort with conventional agriculture.
Dave


----------



## cerezha

Dave Burrup said:


> ... I can produce more for less money and effort with conventional agriculture...


 I understand, but it is changing ... right now. Not necessary in your area, but it is changing. My wife was in Switzerland last Summer - they disgusted with packaged milk and more than few hours old bread. They have cows everywhere. They used cows to "cut" grown grass  For them, it* is normal* to have a good quality fresh food. They have a stationary huge bee-houses - they do not move bees to pollinate. See, it is different, but even in US demand for high-quality food is growing - I heard on NPR that "Whole Foods" is placed a store in the center of very poor community in Detroit. I heard interview with "Whole Food's" CEO - he said that they did very deep investigation of the market before deciding on that Denver location. They feel, it is way to go. I personally, do not support any superstores including the "Whole foods" (I love local corner stores and farmers markets), but it is a trend and winner in the market-economy would be who anticipate changes early enough to jump in.


----------



## rhaldridge

Dave Burrup said:


> >>Organic farming proves that it is possible to "produce" produce with minimal chemical treatment and it is getting more and more popular. At some point, people will establish no-chemical zone to grow their produce in peace. Than,they would need "organic" bees to pollinate their organic fields <<
> 
> Cerezha you must live in a different world than I do if you think organic farming is going to replace conventional farming. We shop in a city of about 60,000 people and there is a large chain grocery that has an organic produce section. Every time we go in I check out the number of people in each section. It is at least 10:1 non-organic over organic. We have a neighbor that farms around us that told me they would go completely organic except there is no one to sell to. He said no body wants the organic crops. The higher production costs for organic lead to higher crop prices that people do not want to pay. Vocal people like you make it sound great but the general public does not care about their health. If they did the market for refined foods, read junk food, would not exist. Do you really think that the pesticides organic farming uses do not kill bees and other beneficials? After all they are pesticides used to control insects.
> Dave


I believe you are incorrect about the status of organic farming.

From this website: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agri...e-agriculture/organic-agriculture-basics.html



> Since 2002, growth in the organic food sector has boomed, far out-pacing the conventional food market.


Also, the objective of the organic approach is not to substitute so-called "natural" pesticides for more lethal ones. The goal is to develop soil health to the point that plants growing in that soil are not seriously affected by pests and diseases. I've been an organic gardener for almost 50 years, and I've seen this myself, over and over. If the soil is good enough, bugs don't bother the plants enough that intervention is needed.


----------



## cerezha

Dave Burrup said:


> ... Only about 1% of agriculture is organic....


 I feel uneasy when people present such numbers to support their statements. 1% and what? Every year only may be 30 people have received a Nobel Prize. It is much, much less than 1% of entire population. But these 30 people did more than the rest of the planet in some way  99% to me just means that land is used inefficiently. I could give you many examples of unwise farmer land use in the Central Valley, California. Sustainable farming, which do not deplete soil and do not poison everything could be done on much smaller piece of land and still be effective. One of the problem with organic farming in US is that land is so contaminated with chemicals (including old DDT) that it may not be qualified for organic farming  If I remember correctly, soil should not see chemicals for 10 years in order to be qualified - anybody could clarify this?


----------



## Barry

Here we are again, back to discussing farming and no bees. Guess it's time to close another one.


----------



## Ian

cerezha said:


> organic farming  If I remember correctly, soil should not see chemicals for 10 years in order to be qualified - anybody could clarify this?


In Canada, its 5 years to achieve that status, plus a whole list of maintenance issues, for example, removal of all treated fence posts


----------

