# papers provide conclusive evidence that the pesticides are causing the mass deaths



## camero7

How about some studies instead of alarmist news organizations. Bees are doing well.


----------



## JRG13

As soon as I see "the guardian" in the link all credibility went out the window


----------



## JustinH

I'm going to assume you guys are the type that think global warming isn't happening because it snows in the winter where you live. Just because your bees are fine (and I'm glad they are!), doesn't mean everybody's bees are fine.


----------



## Haraga

I think pretty much any product/substance used on bees will kill them if used in excess, including water. Oh and hasn't global warming been going on since the ice age?


----------



## squarepeg

i think i'll stay out of this one.


----------



## rweaver7777

I won't disagree that climate change is occurring. I WILL however disagree with the statement that it is man-made AND that there is anything we can possibly do about it.

I'll stick with my own opinion that the bee deaths are due to the combination of stresses on the hives. Pests, diseases, and pesticides all play a role. If the sum total goes above a threshold, the bees may die, may abscond, or may succoumb to any of the other stresses.


----------



## JustinH

All I'll say is, it would be nice to have a local source of seeds/flowers that are not pretreated with the neonics. Like eating organically, I should have the choice to chose with or without chemicals (and things should be labeled). But when Lowes, Walmart, Home Depot, etc pre-treat most of their stuff, it makes it harder to find chemical free flowers.


----------



## dkofoed

I don't think anyone can possibly deny that made-made pesticides, insecticides and any other synthetic chemical used en masse would NOT have some negative impact on the environment, including affecting bees. To declare conclusively that they are the sole cause is not a prudent assumption however ... we will never be able to conclude that definitively. 

That being said, I certainly support organic farming and gardening wherever possible!


----------



## Vance G

Chemicals are not good and need to be watched vigilantly. However when you get enflamed by a radical alarmist rag and then attack people that may or may not have swallowed the Global warming kool aid, you kind of slide down the credibility scale given to sober adults commenting on such things.


----------



## jim lyon

JustinH said:


> All I'll say is, it would be nice to have a local source of seeds/flowers that are not pretreated with the neonics. Like eating organically, I should have the choice to chose with or without chemicals (and things should be labeled). But when Lowes, Walmart, Home Depot, etc pre-treat most of their stuff, it makes it harder to find chemical free flowers.


Then perhaps you should have started a thread to that effect or better yet commented on the thread WLC recently started on that very subject. To start a thread with such an alarmist title and to cite as your proof links from the usual suspects doesn't make for rational conversation. Then to "double down" and bring global warming into the conversation doesn't serve to calm things down. . Rweaver pretty much nails it in post #7. As a first year beekeeper you need to understand that bee health is a pretty complex subject.


----------



## justusflynns

JustinH said:


> All I'll say is, it would be nice to have a local source of seeds/flowers that are not pretreated with the neonics. Like eating organically, I should have the choice to chose with or without chemicals (and things should be labeled). But when Lowes, Walmart, Home Depot, etc pre-treat most of their stuff, it makes it harder to find chemical free flowers.


You do have the choice. It sounds like what you want is for the free market to hand you something it isn't especially interested in providing. Why is it up to someone else to make what you want easy? If it is so important, why don't you start providing it for everyone else? Just curious.


----------



## beemandan

'a new study Wednesday by Friends of the Earth Canada'
Are you guys insinuating that a group calling themselves 'Friends of the Earth Canada' isn't an objective organization?


----------



## wildbranch2007

JRG13 said:


> As soon as I see "the guardian" in the link all credibility went out the window


my thoughts exactly


----------



## Joseph Clemens

Maybe there were "alarmists", shouting their warnings in the streets of Pompeii. Maybe not. There are usually alarmists shouting warnings in most all large cities and in various publications. Odds are, some alarmists and their warnings will eventually prove valid.

History seems to indicate, that some will ignore any and all warnings, no matter the evidence, or veracity of those giving the warning. And those who accept the warnings as valid, generally won't be able to convince those who do not share their opinion, nor make any significant difference in the outcome.

Either way, if neonicotinoid insecticides are the scourge to our environment that "alarmists" portend them to be, or if neonicotinoid insecticides are the salvation of agriculture, our food supply, and ultimately the human race. All of us who survive long enough, will definitely find out for sure.

I'm hoping that neonicotinoid insecticides are as harmless as the manufacturers portend. Since I want most of all, to keep living, eating, and keeping bees.


----------



## TWall

As long as bees are insects insecticides are going to kill them, if they get a lethal dose.

Tom


----------



## JustinH

jim lyon said:


> Then perhaps you should have started a thread to that effect or better yet commented on the thread WLC recently started on that very subject. To start a thread with such an alarmist title and to cite as your proof links from the usual suspects doesn't make for rational conversation. Then to "double down" and bring global warming into the conversation doesn't serve to calm things down. . Rweaver pretty much nails it in post #7. As a first year beekeeper you need to understand that bee health is a pretty complex subject.


Point taken. Apologies.


----------



## jim lyon

JustinH said:


> Point taken. Apologies.


Accepted. Nothing wrong with making it your goal to stay away from pesticides and folks certainly have a right to know what they are buying at the local nursery. Best of luck with your bees. As was pointed out by justusflynns, a possible business opportunity may be waiting the person marketing organic plant stock.


----------



## Kofu

beemandan said:


> 'a new study Wednesday by Friends of the Earth Canada'
> Are you guys insinuating that a group calling themselves 'Friends of the Earth Canada' isn't an objective organization?


Two sources are given in the story. One is an "international panel of 50 scientists working as the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides," which "says a study of 800 research papers provides conclusive evidence that the pesticides are causing the mass deaths of insects that are essential to the process of pollinating most crops."

The other source is the "Friends of the Earth Canada," which released a study showing "that large numbers of supposedly 'bee-friendly' plants sold at garden centres in 18 cities across Canada and the United States are contaminated with neonic pesticides."

I don't know if anyone claims that "Friends of the Earth" is an objective organization. Obviously, they're an advocacy group. But the question whether plants sold at garden centers are dosed with neonicotinoid pesticides can be answered objectively. Recently Home Depot said they'll label the plants that have neonics, so evidently some plants have been dosed without the labels, and now people will have some choice when they buy plants. 

As an urban beekeeper, I'm also concerned by another trend I've noticed recently -- big gallon jugs of pesticides sold to homeowners, each jug with its own spray apparatus, so they can clear all those nasty (!) bugs out of their yards. So if beekeepers who had bees in the almonds had trouble with off-label applications and vat-mixing etc., we're looking at similar disasters for our bees here in urban and suburban areas. And the chemical companies will boost their profit margins for chemicals they can produce and sell by the millions of gallons.

The scientists in the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides have provided a summary of a lot of other studies, and you may dispute the findings. 



TWall said:


> As long as bees are insects insecticides are going to kill them, if they get a lethal dose.


I think with neonics, the concern is also with sub-lethal doses. And a lot of studies are showing those effects. To me it's pretty clear that sub-lethal effects can have long-term impact. If we were exposed to chemicals that gave us migraine headaches all the time, and messed with our sense of balance whenever we were in the sunshine, say, that might make it pretty hard for us to survive in the longer run. I think it's like with cigarettes. The tobacco companies knew long, long ago about the connection with cancer, but they fought long and hard to milk out as much profit as possible until finally they were forced to accept the truth (and pay a small fraction of their riches as to compensate for the damages). Tobacco didn't kill people right away, so of course it wasn't poisonous. Right?


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Justin - there is much alarmist rhetoric out there - most doesn't bear up to scrutiny.

The sky has fallen too often.

Not saying that any pesticides including neonics are good - rather that it is a strategic mistake to focus on one class of pesticide.

No user likes using pesticides - unintended consequences suck. Pesticides are turned to to solve real world economic problems.

Figure out a way to solve the economic problems without pesticides and you'll be very wealthy!


----------



## mattheritage

Lots of opinions here. Lots of attitude too. No sure why apologies are being given and accepted to be honest. Seems a bit high horse-ish to me. Doesnt sound like most even read the articles. *shrug*


----------



## justusflynns

mattheritage said:


> Lots of opinions here. Lots of attitude too. No sure why apologies are being given and accepted to be honest. Seems a bit high horse-ish to me. Doesnt sound like most even read the articles. *shrug*


Pot, meet Kettle.


----------



## zhiv9

Here's a link to the source. It was a 5 year study of 800 published research papers on systemic pesticides. While there have been a few that support that neonics are safe (canola doesn't seem to have effects that corn and soy bean do), the majority of studies are pointing to them being a serious problem for all pollinators, birds and aquatic wildlife.

http://www.tfsp.info/

Here's a video summarizing their findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QceID-Vb64#t=104


----------



## camero7

Not a peer reviewed study, just some opinions.


----------



## zhiv9

camero7 said:


> Not a peer reviewed study, just some opinions.


It is a 5 year review of peer reviewed studies. I think to say its just opinions isn't really fair. If they looked at 800 studies and the results of 700 indicated that neonics were a problem, that is not opinion, that's fact.


----------



## Kofu

zhiv9 said:


> ... the majority of studies are pointing to them being a serious problem for all pollinators, birds and aquatic wildlife.
> 
> http://www.tfsp.info/


These 50 scientists are mostly concerned about pollinators and other wildlife, not honeybees. Of course, there's no _particular_ reason for beekeepers to be concerned, as long as our bees aren't dying much more than they ever have (for whatever reasons). We've figured out how to make increase, to make thousands of queens and distribute them across the country, to use nucs for back-up etc. As long we can keep our bees alive, it's okay if farmers can't get at least some pollination from other sorts of insects. And if it's not for raising food, then we can live without it. Right? :lookout:


----------



## JustinH

Great video zhiv9


----------



## camero7

zhiv9 said:


> It is a 5 year review of peer reviewed studies. I think to say its just opinions isn't really fair. If they looked at 800 studies and the results of 700 indicated that neonics were a problem, that is not opinion, that's fact.


Not one name on the web site, much less their credentials. I can be called a scientist according to my other profession but I have no expertise concerning pesticides and am certainly not an entomologist. Also no list of these "studies" they reviewed. If they are studies like the 2 recently released from Harvard they are a waste of time and would certainly lead one to believe that neonics are the worst ever. The CREDIBLE studies I've read mostly do not reach a strong conclusion either way. But all studies of field realistic neonics - other than the corn planting problem - show no real problem.


----------



## JustinH

camero7 said:


> The CREDIBLE studies I've read mostly do not reach a strong conclusion either way. But all studies of field realistic neonics - other than the corn planting problem - show no real problem.


And which CREDIBLE studies are those?


----------



## Kofu

camero7 said:


> Not one name on the web site, much less their credentials.


The Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) presents the first attempt to synthesize the state of knowledge on the risks to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning posed by the widespread global use of neonicotinoids and fipronil. It is based on the results of over 800 peer-reviewed journal articles published over the past two decades. The Authors assessed respectively the trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites (Simon-Delso et al. 2014), the environmental fate and exposure (Bonmatin et al. 2014), effects on non-target invertebrates (Pisa et al. 2014), direct and indirect effects on vertebrate wildlife (Gibbons et al. 2014), risks to ecosystem functioning and services (Chagnon et al. 2014) and finally explored sustainable pest management practices that can serve as alternatives to the use of neonicotinoids and fipronil (Furlan and Kreutzweiser 2014).

-- http://www.tfsp.info/findings/conclusions/​
The full 'Conclusions' chapter, with all the names and affiliations of the authors of that chapter, is a PDF at http://www.tfsp.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WIA-Conclusions-summary.pdf

I haven't found the citations listed in the paragraph quoted above, but that would be the next step. Seven names: Simon-Delso, Bonmatin, Pisa, Gibbons, Chagnon, Furlan and Kreutzweiser.

With the European Union having banned neonics for a few years, for the more extensive uses, there is going to be some science involved, and this is probably part of that overall project.



camero7 said:


> I can be called a scientist according to my other profession but I have no expertise concerning pesticides and am certainly not an entomologist. Also no list of these "studies" they reviewed. If they are studies like the 2 recently released from Harvard they are a waste of time and would certainly lead one to believe that neonics are the worst ever. The CREDIBLE studies I've read mostly do not reach a strong conclusion either way. But all studies of field realistic neonics - other than the corn planting problem - show no real problem.


As a scientist, you have the tools to explore the 800 studies that were included in this survey. That list of studies will be available to you soon, I'm sure. Publication of this study was embargoed until June 24, so it's just coming out now.


----------



## Kofu

camero7 said:


> Not one name on the web site, much less their credentials.


One name that occurs at least twice is Dr. Jean-Marc Bonmatin, a French scientist. He's the Vice-Chairman of the Board of the task force, he works at Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Biophysique Moléculaire, rue Charles Sadron 45071 Orléans Cedex 02, France, and his name is cited in the 'Conclusions' as lead author of an article on environmental fate and exposure (?).

His credentials can easily be found on the web. Three of his most cited works are listed at BioMedExperts as: 

Qiansong Zhang; Juliette R Ongus; Willem Jan Boot; Johan Calis; Jean-Marc Bonmatin; Eberhard Bengsch; Dick Peters. "Detection and localisation of picorna-like virus particles in tissues of Varroa destructor, an ectoparasite of the honey bee, Apis mellifera."
Jean-Marc Bonmatin; P A Marchand; R Charvet; I Moineau; Eberhard Bengsch; Marc Edouard Colin. "Quantification of imidacloprid uptake in maize crops."
Juliette R Ongus; Dick Peters; Jean-Marc Bonmatin; Eberhard Bengsch; Just M Vlak; Monique M van Oers. "Complete sequence of a picorna-like virus of the genus Iflavirus replicating in the mite Varroa destructor."
Another site, ResearchGate, gives three different citations:

Gaël Charpentier, Fanny Louat, Jean-Marc Bonmatin, Patrice André Marchand, Fanny Vannier, Daniel Locker, Martine Decoville, "Lethal and sublethal effects of imidacloprid, after chronic exposure, on the insect model Drosophila melanogaster."
Delphine Paradis, Géraldine Bérail, Jean-Marc Bonmatin, Luc P Belzunces. "Sensitive analytical methods for 22 relevant insecticides of 3 chemical families in honey by GC-MS/MS and LC-MS/MS."
Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Noa Simon-Delso, Dave Goulson, Laura Maxim, Jean-Marc Bonmatin, Luc P. Belzunces. "Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services"
If there's a scientist involved in this project with experience related to beekeeping, but also in wider fields of study, it seems to me Mr. Bonmatin is one. There might be others among the 50 most directly involved. What do you think?


----------



## Nabber86

Kofu said:


> As a scientist, you have the tools to explore the 800 studies that were included in this survey. That list of studies will be available to you soon, I'm sure. Publication of this study was embargoed until June 24, so it's just coming out now.


If it is "embargoed" (whatever the heck that means), why is there a news report on it and some flakey dubious website refering to it? Giving out conclusions with nothing to back it up = shoddy reporting. The more I look into it, the more suspicious it gets.


----------



## Kofu

"Embargoed" just means it was due for publication, and until then they asked news organizations that were aware of it (and may have had advance copies) to hold off reporting on it. June 24th was a few days ago, so yes, now there are news reports about it.

As for the more than 800 studies, it sounds like they're probably cited in the seven articles listed in the 'Conclusions' chapter. So when we have the dates and names of the publications for those articles, we are 9/10ths of the way to a full listing. I don't have online access to scholarly journals, but others here do, so it's just a matter of time.


----------



## camero7

JustinH said:


> And which CREDIBLE studies are those?


Here are 3... if you bother to read them. I am not a pro insecticide guy. I was an organic farmer for many years. But I can't stand the disinformation out there. Further, most of you are too young to have seen the devastation that the organophosphates did to bee hives in the 50's and 60's. These neonics are so much safer for both the bees and humans. 

While it is undeniable that overwintering losses of commercial honeybee colonies are higher than they were in the recent past, there is no clear indication that pesticides are the root cause of such losses. The USDA survey shed light on the pattern of honeybee losses across the United States and concluded that such losses were unrelated to the patterns of agricultural pesticide use, in general, or neonicotinoid use, in particular. While beekeepers may have difficulty diagnosing a new phenomenon such as colony collapse disorder, they are familiar with other causes of colony loss; and pesticides ranked 8th on the list of possible causes of colony loss in the USDA survey [3]. 

Additionally, the epidemiological evidence from Europe shows no correlation of honeybee losses to pesticide use and indicates the presence of causal factors other than pesticides, although it is not yet possible to completely discount potential interactive effects of neonicotinoids with other stressors. Finally, the time of year when increased mortality of honeybees is the late fall and over the winter, whereas the highest pesticide use occurs in the spring and early summer. 

The life span of forager bees is very short (approximately 1 mo), so the bees that may be exposed to the insecticide in the spring and early summer are not the same bees that overwinter in the hive. Additionally, it has been shown that neonicotinoids do not accumulate over time in the environment, the colony, or the honeybees. Given these 2 attributes of neonicotinoids and bees, it is not possible for the chemicals to have latent effects that are expressed months after application.

All of the neonicotinoid insecticides have been reviewed and approved in many jurisdictions around the world, including Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada, and the United States; and they have been used for more than 15 yr on a variety of crops. Therefore, a significant body of data from both laboratory and field studies is available to assess the risks to colonies of honeybees. 

The available data indicate that there may be effects to individual honeybees housed under laboratory conditions and exposed to unrealistically high concentrations of the insecticides. However, under field conditions and exposure levels, similar effects on honeybee colonies have not been documented. It is not reasonable, therefore, to conclude that crop-applied pesticides in general, or neonicotinoids in particular, are a major risk factor for honeybee colonies, given the current approved uses and beekeeping practices

Because both pesticides and pollinators are critical to the continuing success of worldwide agriculture, it is imperative that we learn to accurately and honestly assess the benefits and risks of their interactions on commercial honeybees and other pollinators.

Risks of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Honeybees
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 33, No. 4, April, 2014

FYI, APVMA has released its overview report on bee health and the use of
neonics in Australia:
http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/bee_and_neonicotinoids.php



Of note: "*On the basis of information available to it, the APVMA is
currently of the view that the introduction of the neonicotinoids has led
to an overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from
the application of insecticides. This view is also balanced with the advice
that Australian honeybee populations are not in decline, despite the
increased use of this group of insecticides in agriculture and horticulture
since the mid-1990s*."

from DEFRA:

> While this assessment cannot exclude rare effects of neonicotinoids on bees in the field, it suggests that effects on bees do not occur under normal circumstances. This assessment also suggests that laboratory based studies demonstrating sub-lethal effects on bees from neonicotinoids did not replicate realistic conditions, but extreme scenarios. Consequently, it supports the view that the risk to bee populations from neonicotinoids, as they are currently used, is low.

> Evidence suggests that populations of bees in free-ranging situations do not normally experience the levels of neonicotinoids that result in sub-lethal toxic effects. This, together with the dilution effect of bees not always feeding upon treated crops, is the most likely reason why field studies do not demonstrate the same effects as studies where bees are given artificial doses of pesticide.

> Insects are significant pollinators of crops like oilseed rape where yields can collapse in the absence of pollinators [12-18]. In the UK, neonicotinoids have been used as seed treatments on OSR for 10 years. This suggests that if pesticide use was reducing pollinator effectiveness then this would also be detrimental to crop productivity. Consequently, the claim that treatment of OSR with neonicotinoids kills pollinators is partly countered by the success of the crops themselves.

© Crown copyright 2013


----------



## Nabber86

WOW. Thanks Cam. I will be saving your post and links .


----------



## melliferal

Everything is a chemical, or a combination of chemicals. Every single thing. Pure water is a chemical.

And even the most synthesized, processed, artificial substance in the world is at its base a combination of substances which occur in nature.


----------



## ForrestB

Vance G said:


> swallowed the Global warming kool aid





> you kind of slide down the credibility scale given to sober adults commenting on such things.


----------



## wdale

Thanks JustinH
This one is super informative!
http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/...eport-2014.pdf

I have been watching this unfold over the past while 

ALL BEE KEEPERS SHOULD GET THE WORD OUT THERE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING 
I have just seen a corn crop and small berry farm near where I work ::: seeing this farmer spraying his crop with this dust. 

YOU CAN GUESS what the farmer was using brand name on tag of product "XXXXXXXXX" which contains neonicotinoid and clothionidin. Both very bad even in small amounts. This poison is in the air, water, ground and now it is in the food we eat. Why I say this is that this is that just seen the farmer spraying his corn fields and strawberry and blueberries plants that we are going to eat. 
When I confronted this framer he was not aware that he was poisoning the food we are eating! (he told me that he was sold this chemical to help combat insects)
I have found out this chemical can be mixed into water and could be mixed as dust and then sprayed. Also being used (coated with before the plant begins to grow from seed.
We need to start putting the brakes on this chemical by going to our government people and forcing them to doo something before are all poisoned


----------



## Haraga

Wdale I have a question in regards to your last sentence. 
Shouldn't you already be poisoned or is this the first time this chemical has been used?


----------



## camero7

wdale where you been. This stuff has been used for many years. I'm surprised we're all still alive. What nonsense.


----------



## Kofu

camero7 said:


> wdale where you been. This stuff has been used for many years. I'm surprised we're all still alive. What nonsense.
> 
> Cam Bishop
> www.circle7honey.com


The link goes to "Circle Seven Honey and Pollination - For all your pollination needs"

First paragraph:

We are no longer pollinating conventionally farmed products due to losses from pesticides/fungicides. We will bring hives to crops where there is a firm, written commitment not to spray with ANYTHING while our bees are in your fields.​
Cam, I understand it's a mixed bag. A lot of hype, and so on. But with your hives and your bees at stake, it's not like "ANYTHING" goes. So maybe it's not ALL nonsense? The question then might be, where do we draw the line? And how do we decide? What studies do we believe? How can we tell? How do we distinguish you and wdale on these questions, in actual practice?


----------



## BlueDiamond

Kofu said:


> where do we draw the line? And how do we decide? What studies do we believe? How can we tell? How do we distinguish you and wdale on these questions, in actual practice?


Takes years of experience to recognize the sincere and competent academics from the insincere and incompetent ones because there is no single place the public can obtain this information. In other words, there is no "better business bureau" that the public can consult to help them recognize good academics from bad ones. Academia itself has no self policing system in place. So a professor is free to post scary and frightening things about a pesticide if they want to like this UC Berkeley professor has in regards to atrazine herbicide http://atrazinelovers.com/ and their peers in the academic community won't do anything about it.


----------



## camero7

Kofu said:


> The link goes to "Circle Seven Honey and Pollination - For all your pollination needs"
> 
> First paragraph:We are no longer pollinating conventionally farmed products due to losses from pesticides/fungicides. We will bring hives to crops where there is a firm, written commitment not to spray with ANYTHING while our bees are in your fields.​
> Cam, I understand it's a mixed bag. A lot of hype, and so on. But with your hives and your bees at stake, it's not like "ANYTHING" goes. So maybe it's not ALL nonsense? The question then might be, where do we draw the line? And how do we decide? What studies do we believe? How can we tell? How do we distinguish you and wdale on these questions, in actual practice?


It's difficult to be sure. I've lost several hives pollinating apples a couple years ago. I have basically quit pollination as a result. I have consistently felt and posted that I believe it's a combination of fungicides and pesticides acting in concert. There is a huge difference between sprays on the trees and dandelions while they are in bloom and seed treatment. No pesticide is safe for bees but there is a degree of danger and we all need to recognize them for our bees health. That doesn't mean we should believe the shills on either side but study and decide for ourselves. The bees tell us what's bad for them and what isn't. My studies and observation tell me the neonics are much safer for my bees and for my family than the previous family of pesticides. And watch out for those fungicides, they are worse than most understand for bees.


----------



## Michael Palmer

A friend in the UK lost 80% of the colonies in one of his apiaries this spring from a pesticide kill on oil seed rape. The UK has banned neonics so the farmer sprayed the crop with a traditional pesticide.

Thing is, with neonic treated OSR, he was making a nice crop of canola honey. 

And now…...


----------



## lazy shooter

I tried to keep from opening this thread, but my curiosity was too great. Still, I wish we didn't have these very divisive topics on our forum.


----------



## cg3

This might be a red herring, but the recent BIP results for the Central region show bees are slightly more likely to survive when located near corn.


----------



## Kofu

lazy shooter said:


> I tried to keep from opening this thread, but my curiosity was too great. Still, I wish we didn't have these very divisive topics on our forum.


Why does it have to be so divisive? :scratch:

I ask that seriously. I know in a general way, but on the face of it you'd think we're the ones who are best-informed and most motivated to work out the differences.

I was talking with my mom on the phone a few days ago, and the conversation shifted from my beekeeping activities to pollinator-support actions in her area -- western Massachusetts. For example, a group called Pollinators Welcome, which operates in the middle of the sorts of issues we're talking about in this thread. I commented on the national environmental organizations that have been jumping on the "save-the-bees" bandwagon in the last year or so, and she said she thought I wasn't really paying attention to stuff like that. 

Several times recently, I've had friends and family lecture me about "the bees," as if I don't really follow that stuff at the political, environmental level. I'm in my 4th year of beekeeping. It does seem like when you're directly, hands-on involved in keeping bees, the issues get more complex and contradictory. And maybe in order to go ahead and "do what needs to be done," we need to simplify the issues. In order to use treatments for our bees, or order queens from the mass-production facilities down South, we need to cut through the 'crap' and just do it. Beekeepers who provide pollination services need to empathize with the farmers and agricultural companies that need pollination but also feel like they need to use pesticides and fungicides. If neonics are less of a threat to our bees, then we can find a way to accept them and hope that it's not so bad.

Personally, I am concerned about other pollinators, and other species that may be affected by neonicotinoid pesticides. I think DDT and tobacco are two examples where vested interests were able to delay political decisions, and a lot of damage accumulated before the legal and political systems were able to "prove" that the damage was occurring. So in one way, beekeepers are on the front lines in this battle, and in another way we're on the sidelines and we can say it's not our concern.


----------



## ForrestB

Kofu said:


> Why does it have to be so divisive? :scratch:


Because anything to do with agriculture, chemicals, and science in general, becomes highly politicized in the U.S. It doesn't matter whether you think pesticides are generally positive, or generally negative, if you express an opinion someone will call you a shill. Or worse. 

A lot of people on both sides of the issue are more interested in hearing their own voices than having a civil (or productive) discussion.

Welcome to the internet.


----------



## Kofu

ForrestB said:


> A lot of people on both sides of the issue are more interested in hearing their own voices than having a civil (or productive) discussion.
> 
> Welcome to the internet.


Yes, I get that. My question is more about beekeepers. How do we recognize the difficulties, and still have civil, productive discussions? On the whole, _BeeSource_ does give us a forum where we can get the facts and opinions out on the table, and most people here are reasonably civil. I'm learning from this conversation, and maybe others are as well. E.g., about Michael Palmer's friend in the U.K. with bees who died from an older generation of pesticides, now that neonics are banned in Europe.


----------



## WLC

FB has it right. There's a lot of politics under the surface of pesticides and Honeybees.

I've read the evidence in the scientific literature. I've also listened to the opposing views.

We need to act quickly and respond in the right measure.

My own opinion is that bans are counter productive.

We need choice. 

We need the option to use/buy the pesticide in a product, or not.

Unfortunately, that's not the current state of affairs here in the U.S. .


----------



## squarepeg

demand/supply, it's upside down. who wants even more **** sapians dying of hunger?

(tried to stay out but couldn't  )


----------



## WLC

Funny thing squarepeg,

My paternal grandfather was able to raise a large family, farm some big colonial acreage, and he didn't need any chemicals.

Are you in some kind of a 'pesticide fantasy'?

I'm growing soybeans. At first, they took some hits from pests. But, guess who showed up? Insect predators.

Fellas, I don't treat my bees. They're looking good so far.

I think some of you are 'hooked'.


----------



## Tim KS

WLC said:


> Funny thing squarepeg,
> 
> My paternal grandfather was able to raise a large family, farm some big colonial acreage, and he didn't need any chemicals.
> 
> Are you in some kind of a 'pesticide fantasy'?
> 
> I'm growing soybeans. At first, they took some hits from pests. But, guess who showed up? Insect predators.
> 
> Fellas, *I don't treat my bees. *They're looking good so far.
> 
> I think some of you are 'hooked'.



You don't treat your bees or beans? I presume you mean beans. No pesticides at all? No glyphosates or weed inhibitors?


----------



## WLC

No. Nothing. Not soybeans. Not Honeybees.

They don't need them.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I think some of you are 'hooked'.


some word argue civilization as we know it is 'hooked'.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> I presume you mean beans. No pesticides at all? No glyphosates or weed inhibitors?

Tim, perhaps some perspective is in order here. 
The soybeans that WLC is growing are _all _in a 3'x3' planter on a building rooftop in New York City. 




"_Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore._" :lookout:


----------



## Joseph Clemens

squarepeg said:


> some word argue civilization as we know it is 'hooked'.


 squarpeg, What does your sentence above, mean?


----------



## WLC

Radar, they're also in a community garden.

They'll soon be in pedestrian island planters as well.

We've got some young trees, recently planted, that need some intervention.

Soybeans are my seed of choice since we've become 'acquainted'.

I like their vigor.


----------



## squarepeg

Joseph Clemens said:


> squarpeg, What does your sentence above, mean?


I'll try.

the greatest user of the man made chemicals that the thread is addressing here is modern agriculture. it's hard to overstate the importance of and therefore the vested interested in we as a species have in this regard. it compels us to get the job right in order for all of us to have food to eat. 

we have become a technical society in which the vast majority of us do not produce our own food, it is produced by others for us. it's so fundamental that our federal government has decided to have the last word on what any person or entity can or can not do in this regard. this is why engaging the the political process pay dividends to those who vest the time and/or treasure there.

i'm an optimist. i feel like there is enough distribution of power (at least there has been in the past) to make our sysyem of government get it mostly right, but neither am i blind to when it has gotten it wrong.

it's really not an either/or, but rather a both/and, it's finding that imformed best way forward that takes into the validity of both sides, and but sometimes have to be a squarepeg to achieve that.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> I'm growing soybeans. At first, they took some hits from pests. But, guess who showed up? Insect predators.


You grow a dozen plants on the roof. If your livelyhood depended on 2,000 acres of soybean, things would be different.


----------



## WLC

Nabber;

Only 2,000 acres?

I wouldn't bother contracting for anything less than 10, 000.

I can count you know.

This is about sustainability after all.


----------



## Scpossum

Nabber86 said:


> You grow a dozen plants on the roof. If your livelyhood depended on 2,000 acres of soybean, things would be different.



Roger on that. Nobody will pay $20 per tomato. At least, not down here.


----------



## WLC

Are we talking $s? City honey sells for $30 a pound. I left over 200 pounds total on my two hives over winter.

Clearly, I don't need the money.

Now that the market is back on track, why bother?

Once again, the issue is sustainability, and GMO neonic seeds aren't sustainable.


----------



## JRG13

Insecticides kill bees, it's nothing novel, to believe they have no ill effects is just as bad as thinking they're the sole issue. As you see what happens when they ban one class, back to something that is actually worse. Problem is the powers to be and the masses have become reactive instead of proactive and with a lot of baseless assumptions driving the policies.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> Nabber;
> 
> Only 2,000 acres?
> 
> I wouldn't bother contracting for anything less than 10, 000.
> 
> I can count you know.
> 
> This is about sustainability after all.


City folks come to the farms where my bees are located all the time. They look out over 30-40 acres and say "it goes on forever all this open land". They do not have visual perception regarding distance or area, that much is clear.
having experienced this time after time I have to say that you would not be able to identify
2000 acres if you were standing in the middle of it.
10,000 acres and you'd be looking for the Pacific Ocean on the far end.


----------



## camero7

> Once again, the issue is sustainability, and GMO neonic seeds aren't sustainable.


gee, i thought this thread was about pesticides, take the GMO argument to tailgater.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Once again, the issue is sustainability, and GMO neonic seeds aren't sustainable.


not so fast there wlc, let's keep facts facts and opinions opinions. remember reality is usually somewhere in between.


----------



## WLC

Health Canada declared them 'unsustainable'.

That's a fact.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Health Canada declared them 'unsustainable'.
> 
> That's a fact.


No its not. 



Here is what Health Canada _actually said:

_


> However, in spring 2013 with more typical weather patterns, we continued to receive a significant number of pollinator mortality reports from both corn and soybean growing regions of Ontario and Quebec, as well as Manitoba. Consequently, we have concluded that current agricultural practices related to the use of neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed are not sustainable.For the 2014 planting season, we intend to implement additional protective measures for corn and soybean production, including:
> 
> 
> 
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring the use of safer dust-reducing seed flow lubricants;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> [HIGHLIGHT]Requiring adherence to safer seed planting practices;[/HIGHLIGHT]
> Requiring new pesticide and seed package labels with enhanced warnings; and,
> Requiring updated value information be provided to support the continued need for neonicotinoid treatment on up to 100% of the corn seed and 50% of the soybean seed.
> http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/...013-01-eng.php


_
_
_Nowhere_ is HealthCanada saying the use of _neonic coated seeds were 'unsustainable'. They are saying that neonicotinoids *planting practices* need to change.

WLC has repeatedly misrepresented what Health Canada has said on this issue. 







​ 
_


----------



## WLC

Unsustainable. Not sustainable.

Regardless. It already happened in Canada.

Thousands of colonies lost due to neonics.

Why do you bother?


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> Are we talking $s? City honey sells for $30 a pound. I left over 200 pounds total on my two hives over winter.
> 
> Clearly, I don't need the money.
> 
> Now that the market is back on track, why bother?
> 
> Once again, the issue is sustainability, and GMO neonic seeds aren't sustainable.


Who's honey sells for 30$ pound in the city, what name is on the jar? where is it sold?
This is starting to sound like a bunch of nonsense.


----------



## WLC

You don't get around much clyde.


----------



## clyderoad

answer the questions please.


----------



## WLC

Take the LIRR to Penn Station. Then head over to Union Square.


----------



## Tim KS

Nabber86 said:


> You grow a dozen plants on the roof. If your livelyhood depended on 2,000 acres of soybean, things would be different.


 :thumbsup: Oh, you beat me to it. Growing a couple of dozen plants that you can hand weed and pick bugs off of is a whole different ballgame than growing hundreds or thousands of acres that provide for your total existence. :thumbsup:


----------



## clyderoad

No 30$ lb. honey on Wednesday as I was at the green market
with my east end farmer friends. 
You must be mistaken.


----------



## WLC

TIM:

I've got them growing densely enough so that they form a canopy above any weeds.

It's a good looking stand of non GMO soybeans.

So what if I'm using them for something besides yields?

Soybeans are a versatile crop, as I'm now discovering for myself.

Clyde:

Here's the secret, city folks with allergies want local honey. Put a date and a location on a 1/2 pound jar, you can get $15 easily.

This is the local market.


----------



## Nabber86

clyderoad said:


> City folks come to the farms where my bees are located all the time. They look out over 30-40 acres and say "it goes on forever all this open land". They do not have visual perception regarding distance or area, that much is clear.
> having experienced this time after time I have to say that you would not be able to identify
> 2000 acres if you were standing in the middle of it.
> 10,000 acres and you'd be looking for the Pacific Ocean on the far end.


I live in Kansas and count acres by the section (640) or township (23,040). Everything is on a grid out here, so it's pretty easy. 

Not sure how many city blocks are in an acre.


----------



## WLC

Nabber:

How about I walk 10 minutes, sit with my personal banker, and buy some commodities?

It would be much easier, and quite frankly, I wouldn't notice the difference.

Try and understand that soybeans can be used for other things besides selling seeds/beans.

I'm using them to test for nectar/pollination.

I'm also looking into soybeans as a soil builder/cover crop.

If I had critters around besides bees, I'd think of them as a potential source of forage.

Free your mind. They're relatively cheap seeds.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> Clyde:
> 
> Here's the secret, city folks with allergies want local honey. Put a date and a location on a 1/2 pound jar, you can get $15 easily.
> 
> This is the local market.


Here's another secret, it's not happening. I know your local market.


----------



## clyderoad

Nabber86 said:


> I live in Kansas and count acres by the section (640) or township (23,040). Everything is on a grid out here, so it's pretty easy.
> 
> Not sure how many city blocks are in an acre.


No section farms here (Long Island). biggest farms count total acreage in several locations sometimes separated by a mile or two field to field.

city blocks in an acre? don't know either


----------



## WLC

Clearly, you don't.

Get on a train already.


----------



## Tim KS

WLC said:


> Nabber:
> 
> 
> Try and understand that soybeans can be used for other things besides selling seeds/beans.
> 
> I'm using them to test for nectar/pollination.
> 
> I'm also looking into soybeans as a soil builder/cover crop.
> 
> If I had critters around besides bees, I'd think of them as a potential source of forage.
> 
> Free your mind. They're relatively cheap seeds.


Hey WLC, if you're looking for new uses for soybeans, they shoot real well through soda straws and they're quite tasty deep fried & salted. Us "bumpkins" in Kansas are finding new uses for our crops all the time. 

What we don't need is someone 1500 miles away, raising 6 square feet of beans in their back yard, telling us that we can do it all without pesticides.....raising pesticide free crops here will raise your food prices considerably.


----------



## BlueDiamond

Kofu said:


> Personally, I am concerned about other pollinators, and other species that may be affected by neonicotinoid pesticides.


Then consider visiting ground zero for neonics - the Corn Belt of the upper Midwest where 60-70% of the entire landmass is covered with corn / soybeans / sugar beets / sunflowers / canola grown from Neonic coated seed. Walk into the farm road ditches the border these massive monocultures. Look at the flowering weeds in those ditches. What do you see? Pollinators. Pollinators of all types and lots of them; e.g. bumblebees, honeybees, syrphid flies, butterflies, soldier beetles, wasps, etc. In fact, if you triend to camp on in those farm road ditches you'd suffer because bugs are so abundant they'd be crawling all over you at night and buzzing in your ears. At dusk you'd also see bats in the air trying to catch the bugs.


----------



## WLC

You can also make soymilk, tofu, and sprouts.

I'm using it for possible Honeybee forage (no luck so far), and I'm starting on using soybeans to help save urban trees.

Nothing is growing in the plots.


----------



## WLC

BD:

It's not 60-70% of the landmass. It's much less in fact.

It would be great if that much area was arable land in any state of the union. But, no.

Alas, that's why their value keeps going up.

We're losing arable land.


----------



## tanksbees

You have to wonder why farmers spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on pesticides if they don't work. They must love pissing money away...did it never occur to them that they are totally unnecessary? 

WLC, you are obviously an expert on pesticides, we have a lot of environmental experts out here in California, especially in San Francisco. A lot of them drive Teslas and they are very smug about their contributions to nature and society.

You don't need many pesticides when your house where you do your organic free range gardening was built on top of leaked toxic waste, like all of the buildings in New York and the low laying areas of the SF Bay Area.


----------



## Brad Bee

JustinH said:


> I'm going to assume you guys are the type that think global warming isn't happening because it snows in the winter where you live. Just because your bees are fine (and I'm glad they are!), doesn't mean everybody's bees are fine.


Does that mean that you are one of the guys that believes global warming exists, even though most of the data to "prove" it is absolutely useless because of the urbanization around the weather stations that record temperatures? You ever stop to think that the grass that was around the "official" reporting station 100 years ago is cooler than the concrete or asphalt that's around it now? 

The earth has gone through warming and cooling spells since it's creation. Nothing to see here, move along....


----------



## WLC

tanksbees:

Save the tude.

Pesticides do kill pollinators.

Friends of the Earth are working to get neonics out of horticultural gardens.

That's pretty much it.

Any real questions or discussion out there?

Or, do you want to vent some more?

The POTUS wants something done about this. I agree.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Health Canada declared them 'unsustainable'.
> 
> That's a fact.


and?


----------



## WLC

tanksbees said:


> ...You don't need many pesticides when your house where you do your organic free range gardening was built on top of leaked toxic waste, like all of the buildings in New York and the low laying areas of the SF Bay Area.


Funny you mentioned that. The garden plot is right across the street from a gas station. My next plot neighbor tried to plant something in a pot of store bought soil to avoid the toxins.

Me. I don't care. I'm not going to eat any thing I grow there anyway. It's a test plot only.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> and?


Killing invertebrates is a loosing proposition.

All you'll do is turn soil into dirt that way.


----------



## squarepeg

Brad Bee said:


> Nothing to see here, move along....


except for the rise in atmospheric co2 (a greenhouse gas) that appears to be mostly responsible for the steepening of the post glacial rise in temperature, as evidenced by polar ice melting and ocean levels rising. if co2 emissions continue on track with population increases it will be a different climate for our grandkids and their kids.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> I was calling Clyde a 'bumpkin' because he's being a pain. As usual.


As usual I point out the embellished comments and contrived statements that are paraded about.
Simple solution, don't make them.


----------



## WLC

My point is this: we don't all plant stuff for money.

I don't depend on pesticides for my bees or my soybeans or my...

Get it?

I'm into sustainability.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> I'm into sustainability.


You don't eat any of the honey that your bees produce.
You don't eat any of the soybeans that you are growing.
You don't eat anything you grow.


And you _crow_ about your "_sustainability_"? :scratch: :s


:ws:

:lpf:


----------



## WLC

Fella:

I can't walk two blocks without walking by a dozen restaurants.

I don't eat city produce for a very good reason. I've seen the soil test results.

I don't want heavy metals in my diet.

It's a fact of life here.

However, I am within easy walking distance of farmers markets, Amish Farms, Whole Foods, Westerly (an organic market) etc. .

There is a difference between living in Midtown Manhattan and wherever it is you're from.

Nothing personal.


----------



## Ian

beemandan said:


> Are you guys insinuating that a group calling themselves 'Friends of the Earth Canada' isn't an objective organization?


Everyone from Canada is objective!! LOL


----------



## WLC

Ian:

Honestly. I objected to Morrissey's alarmist media blast that there was a major neonic contamination event after reading her published report.

Thank goodness that it was a false alarm.

Buddy, when the towers fell on 9/11, they left a toxic legacy that we don't talk about publicly.

We took a hit. I took a hit.

Life goes on.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Killing invertebrates is a loosing proposition.


invertebrates die every minute, but their niche is outbreeding death, no?



WLC said:


> All you'll do is turn soil into dirt that way.


down 'round these parts soil is dirt, and i wish you could see for yourself what an ecosystem thrives on it. we have a great agricultural university in our state, auburn, you may have heard of it. each county has an university extension office that helps farmers and others with their stewardship of the soil and other resources. the farmers are among the best friends that soil could have and rightly so, their livelyhood depends on it.


----------



## WLC

I don't need a University to tell me the difference between soil and dirt.

I was a young boy when my paternal grandfather pushed my hands into the black soil he had created by his own toil and sweat.

He told me to feel it, smell it and taste it, which I did.

I know the difference.

I make soil myself these days.

Imagine that! I think of him as I do it.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I don't need a University to tell me the difference between soil and dirt.


of course you don't, you have a wlc degree, and an roof top lab in which you are attempting to recreate what many of us here walk around in on a daily basis.



WLC said:


> I was a young boy when my paternal grandfather pushed my hands into the black soil he had created by his own toil and sweat.


again, most here and pretty much all mankind would have a similar heritage going back a few generations. times have changed making that model 'unsustainable'.


----------



## squarepeg

i do find it interesting however wlc that a vestige of agrarianism resides in a city dweller like you.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> of course you don't, you have a wlc degree, and an roof top lab in which you are attempting to recreate what many of us here walk around in on a daily basis.


Tut, tut. Don't forget the cytogentics attempts at seeing if camphor causes polyploidy in soybean seeds. Unfortunately, we were unable to get usable results. While toluidine blue worked on occasion, It wasn't enough. I do have a better stain, but since it contains phenol, and the labs are currently being renovated, it will have to wait.



> again, most here and pretty much all mankind would have a similar heritage going back a few generations. times have changed making that model 'unsustainable'.


Uhhh, but I have six composters. Two that I'm currently working with, and four others that I'm trying to bring online.

Here's something you don't know about me: I get other people involved in both beekeeping and gardening.

Yes, I have had students present in competition on both Honeybee genetics and plant genetics.

So, how about you sunshine? Who did you inspire?

Why do you matter?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Lets see, WLC makes his own soil, but doesn't eat any of the resulting produce because he is worried about heavy metal contamination. And he teaches others how to garden and compost - but why isn't the alleged heavy metal contamination an issue there too? :scratch:




Its hard to tell fantasy from reality sometimes.


----------



## WLC

Alleged heavy metal contamination?

Ask the guy who caused it.

He's at the bottom of the Indian Ocean last I heard.


----------



## Barry Digman

It's time to drop the personal sniping and get back on track, folks.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> Alleged heavy metal contamination?
> 
> Ask the guy who caused it.
> 
> He's at the bottom of the Indian Ocean last I heard.


I just returned from the macrobiotic restaurant in town, great place. 

But I tune in here and there is still name calling going on:

Why the name calling? I thought name calling was off limits with you?
No one deserves to be insulted like this, by anyone. 
Is it not possible to embellish and contrive your comments without the name calling?


----------



## WLC

Hey pal,

I don't worship dirt.

That's what current technology will get you.

Besides killing pollinators, that's what this is about.

If you give me the choice, I'll choose soil over dirt every time.

Some of you are 'dirty'.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WOW!

I'm beginning to believe some of those pesticide _horror stories_ now! :lpf:



Heavy metals for lunch, anyone? :gh:


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> Honestly. I objected to Morrissey's alarmist media blast that there was a major neonic contamination event after reading her published report.
> 
> Thank goodness that it was a false alarm.


I think her work needs further study. I'm not one to be able to scrutinize any kind of work like this, but I feel if we can get objective work towards this kind of overland water study, we will all be the wiser, and better for it! And not just related to neonics, Im talking nutrients also


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> So, how about you sunshine? Who did you inspire?
> 
> Why do you matter?


i'm not really trying to matter wlc, it just happens. 

in the beekeeping universe i've only helped three others so far get started with these locally adapted highly hybridized ferally derived treatment free supermutt surviors, (or lahhfdtfss bees for short) and so far we are observing similar results as the seasoned supplier who is now in his eighteenth year with three colonies that have survived without treatments and have successfully requeened themselves for the duration.

i have called the attention of the usda to these lahhfdtfss and they have requested samples for scientific study. it will be interesting to see how they do in other areas and after they hybridize with other local populations.

in the meantime i proceed with an open mind on all of these issues and readily admit that i know what i don't know.

i do suspect that limiting the introduction of anything foriegn to the hive (which in my case is limited to plastic foundation, traces of compounds contained in the wax coating on the plastic foundation, plastic beetle traps, and the vegetable oil i use in those traps), is likely an important part of the equation for the treatment free success of these bees. i think we'll find that there is some merit in not disturbing the normal flora in the hive.

unlike you however i don't see being able to extend the same principles to human survival, unless of course we could return to pre-industrialized population density and resource utilization.


----------



## WLC

Squarepeg:

Attaboy!.

Ian:

I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only guy about to try to put nutrients (and soil structure) where it's not. Those tree contractors don't give a darned about that kind of stuff. There's nothing sadder than seeing that no one cares for a new tree. That's rock bottom IMHO.

I mean really, what's the point of owning the height of technology and you can't turn dirt into soil, or even knock the zit off of a fly's butt within a square yard while using only the product that you need?

Did we all get dumb or something?

Rader:

There's nothing amusing about heavy metal contaminated soil. You literally need to remove it and replace it. That hasn't happened in our parks, like where my bees forage.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Squarepeg: Attaboy!.


many thanks wlc. catch ya'll later.


----------



## lazy shooter

I recently heard a guest speaker, who name I cannot reveal as some of you know him, that is a leading authority on beekeeping. He made a shocking statement that "bee populations worldwide are booming, it's only in the US that bee populations are declining." He showed a graph of bee populations of the US since the end of WWII. Since that time there has been a steady, almost perfectly linear, drop in the US bee population. The reasons for the decline in the US were based more on economics than on disease and pestilence. If he's correct, and I bet he is, all these foreign articles about the demise of bees in their country needs to be viewed with a grain of salt. Just saying.


----------



## Daniel Y

Just a thought on this mass death issue. At one time bees suffered mass deaths due to how beekeeping was done. killing entire colonies in order to harvest the honey. At that time increasing colonies was not nearly as easy to do because of the limits of the equipment being used to keep bees.

Now that the bees suffer mass deaths for causes other than us it is considered some sort of problem. One that many say will be the end of the bee. I hear about the loss of bees all the time. What i do not hear so much about is the production of new colonies. They go together to tell the real story.


----------



## Kofu

Kofu said:


> Personally, I am concerned about other pollinators, and other species that may be affected by neonicotinoid pesticides.





BlueDiamond said:


> Then consider visiting ground zero for neonics - the Corn Belt of the upper Midwest where 60-70% of the entire landmass is covered with corn / soybeans / sugar beets / sunflowers / canola grown from Neonic coated seed. Walk into the farm road ditches the border these massive monocultures. Look at the flowering weeds in those ditches. What do you see? Pollinators. Pollinators of all types and lots of them; e.g. bumblebees, honeybees, syrphid flies, butterflies, soldier beetles, wasps, etc. In fact, if you triend to camp on in those farm road ditches you'd suffer because bugs are so abundant they'd be crawling all over you at night and buzzing in your ears. At dusk you'd also see bats in the air trying to catch the bugs.


Thanks, BlueDiamond, for that picture. I believe it. We've visited through that area, on our way to a family reunion in Zenith, Kansas -- but we didn't try camping in any ditches. 

I posted a link to Beesource a few months ago, which I think is relevant here, about farm-ownership and land-management practices and how it's changing. 

http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/02/half-u-s-farmland-eyed-private-equity/ - "Half of U.S. Farmland Being Eyed by Private Equity"​
In the mix of news and articles that link stirred up for me was a picture of corporate-owned farms pushing tilled land to the side of the road, pushing out the weeds in the ditches, never letting the land lay fallow, etc. Not 100% across the entire farm belt, but more and more, directed by corporate management. I hear something similar is happening with almonds, with hands-off office-based decisions and hired managers less concerned about "less-is-more" pesticide use, etc. These are broad trends, and I don't know much more than what I've read. I'd like to think the picture you paint will remain true for many areas.


----------



## Haraga

lazy shooter said:


> I recently heard a guest speaker, who name I cannot reveal as some of you know him, that is a leading authority on beekeeping. He made a shocking statement that "bee populations worldwide are booming, it's only in the US that bee populations are declining." He showed a graph of bee populations of the US since the end of WWII. Since that time there has been a steady, almost perfectly linear, drop in the US bee population. The reasons for the decline in the US were based more on economics than on disease and pestilence. If he's correct, and I bet he is, all these foreign articles about the demise of bees in their country needs to be viewed with a grain of salt. Just saying.


Man up and give us his name.


----------



## peterloringborst

I published the following letter in the ABJ last year. I have since changed the date, and added a few things.

There is much talk in the press about honey bees being in decline worldwide. This is clearly contradicted by the actual statistics. There are around 11.5 million colonies in Europe whereas the estimate of the number of wild colonies in Africa is 310 million. African bees are not plagued by any of the pathogens that damage European honey bees. Additionally, it was estimated in 1992 that Africanized bees made up 50 to 200 million colonies in Latin America. Mexico reportedly has 2.1 million colonies of honey bees, most of these are Africanized by now.

There is a very large thriving beekeeping industry in Asia. Turkey has approximately 5 million colonies. According to National Bee Board of India (2006–2007), there are about 1.4 million colonies in the country and honey production is about 52,000 tonnes a year. It has been estimated that the Himalayan region has over six million colonies and nests of indigenous and exotic (European) honeybees. Honey production from approximately 1.6 million colonies owned by about 199,000 Korean beekeepers was almost 23,000 metric tons in 2009. 

One report states there are 540,000 managed colonies of honeybees in Australia and an unknown number of feral colonies. As of March 2011 there were 3,251 registered beekeepers, 23,395 apiaries and 388,369 beehives in New Zealand. These beekeeping industries have not suffered widespread losses, although New Zealand now has the varroa mite. Australia still does not. Sanford (1996) reported that the winter kill of managed honey bee colonies by Varroa mite was estimated at 13 million colonies worldwide.

According to the USDA, there were 5.9 million colonies in the US in 1947. FAO reports show 5.5 million in 1961. In the spring of 2014, the US may be down to approximately 3 million colonies (the statistics are disputed). The situation is reversed in China: the number of colonies grew from 3 million in 1960 to 9 million in 2011. This indicates a different trend in the managed honey bee population in China compared with North American and European trends, and there has been no massive loss of bees reported. Most recent statistics in the US show numbers increasing (In summer, of course. Winter numbers are always lower)

Based on FAO data, it is reported that honey bee hives have globally increased by about 45% during the last 50 years, though this has probably been driven by economic globalization (such as the increasing demand for agricultural pollination services) rather than any biological factor. Given the concurrent declines in Europe and the USA, yet overall global increase, this suggests that increases in managed honey bees outside of Europe and the USA must be even greater than 45%, highlighting the stark contrast in trends from different regions of the globe. 

FAO Stats for 2011 indicate the following countries have numbers over one million bee hives

1,000,000	Brazil
1,139,410	Egypt
1,150,000	Angola
1,274,920	Romania
1,340,000	Greece
1,400,000	Central African Republic
1,450,000	Poland
1,847,670	Mexico
2,420,000	Spain
2,491,000	USA
2,510,000	Kenya
2,700,000	Tanzania
2,970,000	Argentina
3,049,320	Russian Federation
3,500,000	Iran
5,130,320	Ethiopia
6,011,330	Turkey
8,947,730	China
10,600,000	India


----------



## squarepeg

good info pete.

it's interesting that the majority of honeybee colonies in the u.s. are domesticated/managed, the result of human breeding, and that the number correlates with economic demand rather than natural and environmental causes.

are you aware any recent studies of the density and location of feral/unmanaged populations in the u.s. and/or europe?


----------



## WLC

Well, that data doesn't address the issue of native pollinator losses.

Also, it really can't address the impact that managed colony losses has on the industry in any one country. You can make up the colony losses, but not the lost productivity.

PLB is just a beekeeper fellas. Stop referring to either him or Randy as anything other than a beekeeper.

He's just another pesticide apologist.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Peter, thanks for assembling all that honeybee census data in one place.


----------



## peterloringborst

Antoine Champetier provides more evidence (as if such were needed) to show that there is not a pollinator crisis. The price of pollination fees is driven by demand, so if bees were in short supply the fees should rise. In fact they have risen astronomically for bees in almonds. However, this is due to vastly increased acreages of almonds planted in California. It is probably exacerbated by the long term drought in California which makes it difficult to maintain large numbers of colonies in state. Meanwhile, pollination fees for other crops have not risen, with the exception of cherries:

> Indeed, the pollination fees for varieties of cherries blooming at the same time as almonds have increased drastically since 2004 whereas the fees for varieties blooming later have not

Cherries and also plums are competing against the high priced almond rentals. Fees for apples averaged less than twenty dollars ten years ago and by 2009 were in the high thirties. During the same span the fee for almonds went from fifty five to over one hundred and fifty five. 

The bottom line is this: almonds are such a valuable commodity that the growers pay almost the asking price of the hive to get them in there for a couple of weeks. Why don't they just buy the hives? Because they are smarter than that, the bees could be dead in a year, especially if they kept them in the valley. Simpler to let the beekeeper worry about keeping them alive elsewhere. 

Why don't prices go through the roof for other crops, like apples in NYS? Because there are enough bees, especially in areas where native bees and local beekeepers are providing services for free.

PLB

Champetier, A. (2010, July). The dynamics of pollination markets. In Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2010 Joint Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado (pp. 25-27).



> Domesticated honey bees are livestock and like other species of domesticated animals, their breeding, feeding, and roaming are for the most part controlled by man. As a result, understanding and predicting the impacts of economic and biological changes on the abundance of these pollinators and the services they provide hinges on understanding and predicting the behavior of their keepers. This chapter provides an important extension to the very small literature on the economics of pollination by presenting a model of the economics of beekeeping which incorporates the seasonal variations of honey bee population.


----------



## WLC

Yet another 'apology'?

Apologists used to say that there's no field realistic dose related Honeybee kills going on.

Then Canada lost thousands of colonies due to neonics which were then declared unsustainable by Health Canada.

So, now the apologists switch to the colony number strawman.

There was a major pesticide related bee kill in almonds this year.

Why are you talking about 'markets'?

Pesticide related bee kills keep occurring in substantial numbers.

Why apologize?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Then Canada lost thousands of colonies due to neonics which were then declared unsustainable by Health Canada.


Health Canada did NOT "declare that neonics were unsustainable". They called for changes in planting practices.

We have been over this many times, and WLC continues to misrepresent what Health Canada actually said. See post #69 of this same thread for the details of most recent previous instance, including quotes and links to the ACTUAL Health Canada statement.


----------



## lazy shooter

Haraga said:


> Man up and give us his name.


I would never throw a friend in the grease. Google bee population worldwide and READ.


----------



## WLC

Of course they did. You just won't accept the term 'unsustainable' for 'not sustainable'.

The PMRA said just that.

You keep using the same tactics online. Try to discredit the source.

The PMRA of Health Canada declared neonics unsustainable after thousands of Honeybee colonies were KILLED by field realistic concentrations of neonics.

Rader, you should be taken to task for your 'antics'.


----------



## Michael Palmer

WLC said:


> PLB is just a beekeeper fellas. Stop referring to either him or Randy as anything other than a beekeeper.
> 
> He's just another pesticide apologist.


Well Mr. WLC. I'm just another one of those beekeepers. I'll never amount to spit in the wind. But I can tell you this…I have 40+ apiaries surrounded by corn. Corn with clothianadin. Wanna come look and see? You should. 

And how much corn is there in NYC? With clothiandin? 

But I should apologize as I'm nothing but another beekeeper. But I apologize for no one. Not you, or Pete, or Randy, or Monsanto or no-one. My bees are booming.

And where do you get off saying such rude things…living in NYC you have some nerve. Come spend some time in the real beekeeping world.


----------



## WLC

Clearly, Mike Palmer, your bees weren't the ones that perished in Canada, California almonds, etc. .

Those were real, documented pesticide related Honeybee kills, and they keep occurring with what appears to be an ever increasing frequency and severity.

I for one applaud the Friends of the Earth for their efforts in changing the practice of selling neonic treated plants to unsuspecting gardeners.


----------



## squarepeg

well said mp.

got to love beesource, where the sparks fly and the pieces fall where they may, all the pursuit of 'spirited' debate of course. 

wlc, are you familiar with the story of the little boy who cried 'wolf' and its moral?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Rader, you should be taken to task for your 'antics'.


You mean my 'antics' like providing *actual quotes* and *links *to the the original statements by the parties concerned?

Why are the _actual facts_ a bad thing? Do you prefer _fantasy _over _facts_? :s


----------



## WLC

Rader, those are the antics I'm referring to: what you're doing now.

Whether or not you agree with the effort to label or remove neonics in garden departments in stores like Home Depot is your problem.

It's happening.

So, what are you arguing about?


----------



## WLC

Who is crying 'wolf'?

We know what neonics and other pesticides can do to bees, etc. .

squarepeg, you let yourself get turned around by these jokers too easily.

Do you really want to say that everything is beautiful? Problem? What problem?

Fortunately, some serious players realize that there's a problem that needs to be addressed, including the POTUS and Congress.

Why do I get the feeling that someone is going to 'apologize' for that?


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Who is crying 'wolf'?


it's environmental activists like yourself blaming the so called demise of the bee on modern agriculture, hoping for a politcal outcome like what happened in the e.u. precautionary principle? give me a break.



WLC said:


> We know what neonics and other pesticides can do to bees, etc.


we know as well what they don't do.



WLC said:


> squarepeg, you let yourself get turned around by these jokers too easily.


sorry wlc, i believe that you may have mistaken me for someone else.



WLC said:


> Do you really want to say that everything is beautiful? Problem? What problem?


i like to take the optimist view. of course everything can't be beautiful, but let's not make this any more (or less) of an issue that it is.



WLC said:


> Fortunately, some serious players realize that there's a problem that needs to be addressed, including the POTUS and Congress.
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that someone is going to 'apologize' for that?


i'm sure our decision maker's are dizzy from all the spinning coming from both sides of the issue. sometimes cooler heads prevail, as i hope they do in this case.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg said:


> it's environmental activists like yourself blaming the so called demise of the bee on modern agriculture, hoping for a politcal outcome like what happened in the e.u. precautionary principle? give me a break.


Need a break? Sure.

Just one thing, what makes you think that I'm an 'Environmental Activist'?

I'm not, although I've known some over the years.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks, i'll take it.

my bad wlc. perhaps rader can help me with the archives, but if memory serves me you shared with the forum that you were active in that regard, and your positions on these matters seem consistent with that. apologies if i was mistaken.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Just one thing, what makes you think that I'm an 'Environmental Activist'?


WLC fancies himself a '_*social *_activist' ....  



WLC said:


> I'm both scientist and *social activist* (and more).


:lpf:


.... and '_more degrees than a thermometer'_, too ...
do I need to link it?


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

Do you really take Graham seriously?

Last I heard his job description was resident 'something or other'.

He's a BB in my opinion.


----------



## squarepeg

no need to change the subject wlc. it's not a crime in this country to have a point of view and join the political process to effect outcomes. i just get peeved when the facts get distorted about the so called demise of the bees and they are made the poster child for the anti-chem lobby.


----------



## WLC

You're being subjective about what's in the scientific literature on the topic.

Yes, we do have a problem. These 'chemicals' are doing things they're not supposed to be doing.

If you want first hand information, learn to read what's in the scientific literature for yourself.


----------



## squarepeg

perhaps, although the literature can sometimes be subjective and open to interpretation, no?

you could try developing an appreciation for looking at the issue in terms of risk/benefit. as with many complex issues it's not black or white, either/or. an informed position should be based on the careful analysis of the relative risks and benefits of using or not using a given approach, comparing and contrasting in this way the alternatives.


----------



## peterloringborst

> And where do you get off saying such rude things…living in NYC you have some nerve.


I tend to _ignore_ the folks who seem more interested in character attacks, than intelligent conversation.


----------



## StevenG

opcorn: wow.... I should have taken a sedative before reading this thread and all the insults....


----------



## WLC

peterloringborst said:


> I tend to _ignore_ the folks who seem more interested in character attacks, than intelligent conversation.


Peter, I would love to have an intelligent conversation. But, you so transparently tow the company line, that it's not going to happen.

I'm not going to let you get away with the 'colony numbers are improving' nonsense after the 'field realistic dose' canard fell flat after what occurred in Canada.


----------



## peterloringborst

> Someone’s got it in for me, they’re planting stories in the press
> Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out but when they will I can only guess
> People see me all the time and they just can’t remember how to act
> Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts
> 
> Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth
> Blowing down the backroads headin’ south
> Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
> It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe
> 
> Idiot wind, blowing through the buttons of our coats
> Blowing through the letters that we wrote
> Idiot wind, blowing through the dust upon our shelves
> We’re idiots, babe
> It’s a wonder we can even feed ourselves


excerpted from
Idiot Wind by Bob Dylan
Copyright © 1974 by Ram's Horn Music


----------



## WLC

Peter:

Read the actual Task Force findings first, and see if you recognize the names and institutions of any of the scientists involved.

No, Peter.

You're still not a real scientist despite what gets published in ABJ.

You know, the direction from which the 'Idiot Wind' is blowing these days.


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> excerpted from
> Idiot Wind by Bob Dylan
> Copyright © 1974 by Ram's Horn Music


from a related arean, the same problem:

"Margaret Chan, director general of the World Health Organisation, has put the problem succinctly: "It's not just Big Tobacco anymore. Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation and protect themselves by using the same tactics, including lobbying, lawsuits, promises of self-regulation and industry-funded research that confuses the evidence and keeps the public in doubt."

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/02/shape-were-in-junk-food-sarah-boseley-review

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

peterloringborst said:


> Antoine Champetier provides more evidence (as if such were needed) to show that there is not a pollinator crisis. The price of pollination fees is driven by demand, ....


This is a good argument Peter. It is howerever irrelevant to the larger issue. The 'pollination crisis' concerns the greater ecology as well as agriculture. The many wild pollinators provide free services every bit as valuable as those provided by beekeepers. 

Pesticides are not the only problem faced by the beneficial natural ecology. But they are certainly part of it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Vance G said:


> Chemicals are not good and need to be watched vigilantly. However when you get enflamed by a radical alarmist rag and then attack people that may or may not have swallowed the Global warming kool aid, you kind of slide down the credibility scale given to sober adults commenting on such things.


I love it! the Guardian, a 'radical alarmist rag'! The Guardian is one of the most highly regarded sources of journalism in the world. Period.

Mike


----------



## mike bispham

rweaver7777 said:


> I won't disagree that climate change is occurring. I WILL however disagree with the statement that it is man-made AND that there is anything we can possibly do about it.


 I think its great that you have the courage to stand against the combined wisdom of 100% of climatolgoists worldwide on this.

The science linking co2 emmissions to rises in global temperature is the compound result of decades of close study and billions of dollars of research. 

But you guys know better! Could that be anything to do with the millions of dollars the energy corps spend muddying the waters? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## melliferal

michael palmer said:


> but i should apologize as i'm nothing but another beekeeper. But i apologize for no one. Not you, or pete, or randy, or monsanto or no-one. My bees are booming.


BREAKING: _Chem-using Beekeeper's Bees Explode; Pesticide Blamed_


----------



## mike bispham

Kofu said:


> Two sources are given in the story. One is an "international panel of 50 scientists working as the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides," which "says a study of 800 research papers provides conclusive evidence that the pesticides are causing the mass deaths of insects that are essential to the process of pollinating most crops."
> 
> The other source is the "Friends of the Earth Canada," which released a study showing "that large numbers of supposedly 'bee-friendly' plants sold at garden centres in 18 cities across Canada and the United States are contaminated with neonic pesticides."


A sane voice in the wilderness. Thank you Kofu

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Andrew Dewey said:


> Pesticides are turned to to solve real world economic problems.
> 
> Figure out a way to solve the economic problems without pesticides and you'll be very wealthy!


Here's the rub: the real-world 'problem' is: how can multinational agri-industrial corporations and their client landowner/manager farmers maintain their profitable grip on the food supply?

Its funny, isn't it, how there's this great food shortage/panic, and yet we can devote a very significant proportion of our agricultural land to growing more profitable crops - for energy, for household chemicals, for 'food'stuffs that simply make people ill? Its funny isn't it, that a vast proportion of land use is devoted to growing crops for animal feed, to supply vast amounts of meat and dairy products the require between 6 and 10 times as much energy input as is returned? Anyone have any idea how much productive land is used to grow coffee, tea, tobacco, flowers; herbs and spices in developing countries that struggle to feed their own populations?

Anyone have any idea of the impact of cheap food imports on developing countries, raised through vast subsidies supplied by rich western countries? 

If there truly was a food shortage problem surely we'd address these things? 

If on the other hand the 'problem' is to maintain the profitability of a vast and vastly powerful industry, then we're talking about something else, aren't we?

The 'starving world' story is a narrative conceived and propagated by multibillion dollar multinationals with the intention of furthing their core agenda. What is that agenda? Its the same as in every large corporation, 'shareholder value'. The food industries lobby has the most powerful lobby system there is - its a record breaker. It ensures that regulators facilitate continuing profitability, it shapes and distributes the key narratives that make that possible.

Try to look a bit deeper than the stories you are fed by a compliant media.

Mike (UK)


----------



## melliferal

...I'm sorry, what food shortage?

I haven't heard a news story claiming any kind of food shortage in...I can't remember. Years and years on top of years and years. There are some years in which a particular food is in shorter supply than in other years, but in such cases the news is only about a price increase, not an actual lack of availability of that food. We make plenty of food, and I can't remember anyone, "multinationals" or otherwise, claiming different. Certainly nothing even close to a "panic".

That's part of the rationale for agricultural "subsidies" that some people love and some people hate so much - food is so plentiful that it's dirt cheap and many farmers can't survive on, let alone profit from, the value of their harvest. That's why so much space is dedicated to non-food crops - they make more money for the people growing them, whether it's a family farm or so-called "factory" farm.


----------



## mike bispham

melliferal said:


> ...I'm sorry, what food shortage?
> 
> I haven't heard a news story claiming any kind of food shortage in...I can't remember.


Obviously we are exposed to different sources. Every time I hear of i.e. Monsanto trying to wiggle past European regulators, or Syngenta defending neonics the same old stuff about feeding a growing world population is trotted out.



melliferal said:


> There are some years in which a particular food is in shorter supply than in other years, but in such cases the news is only about a price increase, not an actual lack of availability of that food. We make plenty of food, and I can't remember anyone, "multinationals" or otherwise, claiming different. Certainly nothing even close to a "panic".
> 
> That's part of the rationale for agricultural "subsidies" that some people love and some people hate so much - food is so plentiful that it's dirt cheap and many farmers can't survive on, let alone profit from, the value of their harvest. That's why so much space is dedicated to non-food crops - they make more money for the people growing them, whether it's a family farm or so-called "factory" farm.


I agree. So what is the 'real world economic problem?' Is it a) how to feed people, or b) how to make farming profitable?

I'm curious: why do you put quote marks around 'multinationals' and 'subsidies'?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

mike bispham said:


> Its funny, isn't it, how there's this great food shortage/panic, and yet we can devote a very significant proportion of our agricultural land to growing more profitable crops - (UK)


Why would you find this funny? What other reason is their to work? I do not keep bees out of some love for my fellow man and his desire to consume honey. I keep them for the profit they provide. Farmers grow what will be most profitable. I don't find that surprising. it is the consumers desire to have honey that creates the sales of honey. not some deep concern on my part that they have it.

This whole thinking that other are motivated by your well being is BS. I agree there is no food shortage. I also agree that the way food is produced today makes it less valuable. So the idea that food is dirt cheap must be looked at in the context that something that is dirt cheap when it has no value at all is more expensive than something that is higher priced but has a greater value. 

Not to long ago I did a comparison of average wages in the 60's compared to today. I then did a comparison of food costs, housing, and transportation between then and now. Basically how many hours did you work then to make your house payment in comparison to today, Pay for a car and buy your groceries. Although homes and vehicles have both increased dramatically in that period of time. Food is about the same cost. You have to look into how that food is produced to get the entire story though. farming has done a grand job of keeping the cost of eating down. But at what price? Farming now produces largely faster grown flavorless and nutritionally deprived food stuffs. The value of what you buy has fallen. While the relative value of homes and vehicles has increased. Homes cost more. but you are also buying more of a home. the same with vehicles. They come with features not even though of in the 60's.

Which is truly the better value?

In all I see food as the worst increase in cost. you pay about the same for something that has lost a large percentage of it's value. while homes and cars have increased in price. That money is buying more.


----------



## lazy shooter

This thread is tiring. It does not provide any information that will help me keep bees. This thread is about: Do we want the government to regulate everything, or do we want private enterprise. When each of has the regulations in place that we want, freedom will be gone. That's why big government is always stirring the pot and ready to regulate for the masses.


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Why would you find this funny? What other reason is their to work? I do not keep bees out of some love for my fellow man and his desire to consume honey. I keep them for the profit they provide. Farmers grow what will be most profitable. I don't find that surprising. it is the consumers desire to have honey that creates the sales of honey. not some deep concern on my part that they have it.


I'm not sure how to respond to that Daniel. You seemed to have missed my point and wandered off someplace else.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

lazy shooter said:


> This thread is about: Do we want the government to regulate everything, or do we want private enterprise.


Actually its about pesticides and bees. As to your statement...

Is that: "Do we want the government to regulate everything, or do we want private enterprise... to regulate everything"? 

Or do we want a sensible mid point that harnesses the energy of private enterprise to common benefit. 



lazy shooter said:


> When each of has the regulations in place that we want, freedom will be gone. That's why big government is always stirring the pot and ready to regulate for the masses.


That lazy libertarian 'argument' is massively propogated by wealthy powers whose freedom to profit from destructive acts are limited by regulations protecting common goods and the rights of unborn generations. 

Yeah, lets have a bonfire of environmental regulations, and be free to kill every last bird, butterfly, creepy-crawley. They cut into my farming profits, and anyway, who needs em? 

Freedom, liberty, yeah! 

Mike (UK)


----------



## squarepeg

lazy shooter said:


> This thread is about: Do we want the government to regulate everything, or do we want private enterprise.


not either/or, but rather an effective balance is what the goal is. getting there is sometimes messy because the priorities of the stakeholders are at odds with each other.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Yeah, lets have a bonfire of environmental regulations, and be free to kill every last bird, butterfly, creepy-crawley. They cut into my farming profits, and anyway, who needs em?


Gee, Mike, I'm a little surprised to see you advocating such an extreme position.  :no:


Somehow it seems at odds with the the [misstatement] that you are _*still *_pushing on your website ...



> It can be seen that [HIGHLIGHT]modern beekeeping practice is the sole cause of the crisis affecting both wild and domestic bees. [/HIGHLIGHT] The solution lies in the hands of beekeepers and their regulators. Not only should stocks that need to be medicated in order to stay alive not be used for breeding, they should not either be allowed to send their sickly genes into the wild, where they undermine the process of natural selection that would otherwise allow feral bees recover their health.
> http://www.suttonjoinery.co.uk/CCD/




... how about forage availability and/or crop pesticides, for instance ...:scratch:



:gh:


----------



## lazy shooter

Old Mike has a picture of me sitting on a pile of cash, with my biggest problem being able to have more fun and direct more slaves about my mansion. That being the case, I wouldn't care about the environment around me. If all the bees die and the air goes away, I will spend my money and buy more air. What a simple attitude to be a naive liberal that thinks government is the only answer to all of life problems. 

Oh, and Daniel, I perfectly understand what you state about farmers growing those crops that are most profitable. I sell grass fed beef calves. Calves that are never injected with anything. Calves grown on natural grass and their mother's milk. And, yes, I choose cattle that I think are going to be the most profitable.


----------



## melliferal

mike bispham said:


> I agree. So what is the 'real world economic problem?' Is it a) how to feed people, or b) how to make farming profitable?


Currently it's the latter; however, it can become the former, if the processes and techniques which led to food being so plentiful and available are rolled back or restricted too much.



mike bispham said:


> I'm curious: why do you put quote marks around 'multinationals' and 'subsidies'?
> 
> Mike (UK)


"Multinationals" because I was quoting you; "subsidies" because I'm not entirely sure whether the term was correct or completely inclusive of what I was talking about. You did seem to get the idea of what I was saying, though; hopefully most will.


----------



## melliferal

Bees that might need treatment to overcome particularly bad infections or infestations aren't "sickly"; bees have more genes than the ones which leave them susceptible to certain stressors, and those other characteristics belong in the available gene pool every bit as much as mite resistance. Intentionally culling these bees promotes an artificial genetic bottleneck that will weaken the species.

Beekeeping is by definition a wholly unnatural process; in the same way that ALL agriculture is unnatural. Complaining that this or that aspect or method of it is "too unnatural" is a little arbitrary, don't you think?


----------



## mike bispham

lazy shooter said:


> Old Mike has a picture of me sitting on a pile of cash, with my biggest problem being able to have more fun and direct more slaves about my mansion.


I hadn't given you that much thought. We were talking about matters on a larger scale than your activities.

Of course individuals will always do what they can to better themselves. Me and you. And some of us try to go about it without causing unnecessary damage. Corporations, not so much. Their responsibilities are to their shareholders.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

melliferal said:


> Currently it's the latter;


Ok. So marginal improvements in the returns available to shareholders are a good reason permit every acre of land to be subjected to 'improvement' and wildlife banished, even at the cost of whole species extinctions? 

There's no benefit in regulating to prevent that? 



melliferal said:


> however, it can become the former, if the processes and techniques which led to food being so plentiful and available are rolled back or restricted too much.


That seems unlikely. No one is arguing for a return to a hunter-gatherer existence.



melliferal said:


> "Multinationals" because I was quoting you; "subsidies" because I'm not entirely sure whether the term was correct or completely inclusive of what I was talking about. You did seem to get the idea of what I was saying, though; hopefully most will.


Usually when quotes are used in that way it is because the writer wishes to signal a lack of faith in the validity of the terms.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

melliferal said:


> Bees that might need treatment to overcome particularly bad infections or infestations aren't "sickly"; bees have more genes than the ones which leave them susceptible to certain stressors, and those other characteristics belong in the available gene pool every bit as much as mite resistance. Intentionally culling these bees promotes an artificial genetic bottleneck that will weaken the species.


Sorry, that's tripe. Natural selection for the fittest strains systematically eliminates unfit strains, constantly. There is a distinct need for that: predator organismisms are constantly evolving to take better advantage. There is a continuous predator-prey 'arms race' in which the weak most be removed to protect the greater population.



melliferal said:


> Beekeeping is by definition a wholly unnatural process; in the same way that ALL agriculture is unnatural. Complaining that this or that aspect or method of it is "too unnatural" is a little arbitrary, don't you think?


Not at all. ALL husbandry involves careful selective propagation. Stop that and sickliness swiftly and inevitably results.

Mike (UK)


----------



## melliferal

mike bispham said:


> Sorry, that's tripe. Natural selection for the fittest strains systematically eliminates unfit strains, constantly. There is a distinct need for that: predator organismisms are constantly evolving to take better advantage. There is a continuous predator-prey 'arms race' in which the weak most be removed to protect the greater population.


Natural selection isn't a discrete process that can be "undermined". Evolution is a completely random process; predators do not intentionally evolve specifically to take advantage of any condition, rather they unintentionally and randomly evolve in many different directions and it's purely happenstance that the ones lucky enough to have accidentally evolved in directions better suited to present conditions survive better when left to their own devices.

But kept bees aren't left to their own devices. Developing a medicine and giving it to them doesn't somehow "break" nature or the random processes of natural selection any more than keeping them in an artificially maintained box already does. It seems to me that if a kept colony with "bad genes" is allowed to cast swarms, those swarms will simply die in the wild as expected; so the problem will be addressed in that manner exactly the same as if the original colony were itself permitted to die. Given that fact, I have certain moral and/or ethical reservations about hiving a colony of bees, judging them genetically unworthy for coming down with a bad infection and deliberately allowing them to die when I have the means to prevent that.

If the bees with the "bad genes" manage to survive well enough in the wild to widely propagate, that kind of proves that their "genetic weakness" isn't such a toxic liability after all, and that means there's no need to artificially cull those genes from the pool.


----------



## Dave Burrup

Here is a good example of how natural selection works in the real world. I spent 4 years working on Grizzlies in Yellowstone National Park. One of the problems with that population of grizzlies is the insufficientcy of a good quality protein source. They do kill elk and scavenge carcasses, but they are not very efficient at killing prey. We collared a young female near the lake and she was very good at killing elk. How she learned this we do not know. She grew fast and matured early. She had 3 cubs every year of her adult life, but because she was always defending elk carcasses from other predators her cubs were killed. She never raised a single cub, so her skills were lost to the population.
Dave


----------



## mike bispham

melliferal said:


> Developing a medicine and giving it to them doesn't somehow "break" nature or the random processes of natural selection any more than keeping them in an artificially maintained box already does.


It domesticates the strain, making them reliant on further medication in future generations. It removes selective pressure. It does indeed 'break' the natural process.

Don't forget about drone transmission of genes. Your thus domesticated/hospitalized bees will mate with feral bees, and makes them vulnerable to whatever it was that needed treating. With no treatment they'll tend to die off, removing health-giving genetic diversity.



melliferal said:


> It seems to me that if a kept colony with "bad genes" is allowed to cast swarms, those swarms will simply die in the wild as expected; so the problem will be addressed in that manner exactly the same as if the original colony were itself permitted to die.


Yes. Natural selection will take care of the problem.



melliferal said:


> Given that fact, I have certain moral and/or ethical reservations about hiving a colony of bees, judging them genetically unworthy for coming down with a bad infection and deliberately allowing them to die when I have the means to prevent that.


Its very much a part of bee husbandry to re-queen poor stock. That is, deliberately kill the bloodline. This is no different to any other kind of animal husbandry - you constantly propagate only from the best and castrate/send the rest to market.

Beekeepers doing anything else are dragging down the health of their own bees and their local populations. period. 



melliferal said:


> If the bees with the "bad genes" manage to survive well enough in the wild to widely propagate, that kind of proves that their "genetic weakness" isn't such a toxic liability after all, and that means there's no need to artificially cull those genes from the pool.


Well, yes. But a) they may be so unproductive as to be useless for beekeeping purposes, and b) you'll probably never find out! Why not just keep healthy bees only in the first place? That way you'll be supportive of your local feral population, tending to preserve local genetic diversity rather than destroying it.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Dave Burrup said:


> Here is a good example of how natural selection works in the real world. She never raised a single cub, so her skills were lost to the population.
> Dave


I think that's more of an example of how natural selection didn't work... to increase the chances of successful reproduction. 

I'ts also an example of the sorts of constraits that the environment sets out. An advantage in one area might turn out to be a disadvantage in another, therefore no gain. On another occasion the advantage might remain. I remember an example of the same sort given by the tv naturalist David Attenborough. He was watching tortoses, and one, Speedy, was much faster and more adventurous than the rest. He thrived. But one day he went too far, and was caught out by the hot midday sun. The team watched him die, understanding that to interfere would be the worst thing to do - not for him but for the population he was part of.

Interesting stuff, thanks Dave.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Daniel Y

I think the above is a good example of our ability to determine what is in fact the most fit. The assumption that an elk killing bear is more fit. Evidently not. maybe rabbit killing is their thing. What I look at is why we would assume elk is a better prey animal for bears than rabbits or mice or grubs.

How could you possibly select for traits when you have no idea what they would be in the first place?

Natural selection creates a wide range of traits. this alone would not be acceptable to beekeeping which requires consistency and reliability. Natural selection selects for the benefit of the mite as much as it does for the bee.

It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.

Natural traits already exist and are across the board found to be undesirable.


----------



## Barry

Daniel Y said:


> I think the above is a good example of our ability to determine what is in fact the most fit.


I think you meant "inability".

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/salmon-running-the-gauntlet/video-full-episode/6620/

There are many parallels between the salmon issues and honey bees. A quote that stuck in my mind from watching this last night:

"We're going to make the optimum fish. We're going to release it at the right size, we're going to release it at the right time, we're going to control the conditions so it survives all of the vagaries of that fresh water environment, and unfortunately the real basis of the productivity of salmon is their genetic diversity. And the problem is, through the process of rearing fish in a controlled environment generation after generation you lose that genetic diversity through interbreeding or through selection in the hatchery or both."

- Dan Bottom


----------



## Dave Burrup

The parallel with bees I was after with the bear is this. Even though the almost constant diet of meat allowed the bear to raise an unbelievable number of young, and was the probable reason for her maturing early she was not able to pass on her traits be them learned or genetic. She was a dead end. In bees the most productive hives usually have the highest number of mites due to the brood that is being raised. So unless the bees develop a means of reducing the mite population the trait for large populations and honey production is lost. The most fit bee could very well be the one that maintains a smaller population of bees. Natural selection is often contrary to our goals. I often wonder if we are selecting for a bee with greater pesticide tolerance.
Dave


----------



## crofter

Resilience is one of the biggest contributors to long range survival. It is best to keep alive the genetics that survive in lean years, the extreme cold year, the ones with false springs, etc. Under the optimum conditions the habits of some individuals lead to incredible yields but some of their habits will also lead to failure under other conditions. Criteria for selection of traits is not that simple. Specialization has been a dangerous trait in evolutionary terms; dont have your eggs all in one basket is good advice in many ways.


----------



## mike bispham

Dave Burrup said:


> The parallel with bees I was after with the bear is this. Even though the almost constant diet of meat allowed the bear to raise an unbelievable number of young, and was the probable reason for her maturing early she was not able to pass on her traits be them learned or genetic. She was a dead end. In bees the most productive hives usually have the highest number of mites due to the brood that is being raised. So unless the bees develop a means of reducing the mite population the trait for large populations and honey production is lost. The most fit bee could very well be the one that maintains a smaller population of bees.


I agree with all that Dave (and with what Crofter says). However, bear in mind that in nature large size and fitness often go together. Its the bigger, stronger male that wins the mating competion most often; being large and strong is a good defensive (and offensive, and hunting...) tactic. Being the pup, or cub, that gets to the teat fastest and drinks quickest is often the start in life that pushes you onto the reproductive map.

This is true with bee colonies too. A large colony can defend itself better, it can get in more honey to power swarms and casts and weather long winters (as long as it shrinks back down well in the Autumn). Probably most important it can raise a much larger number of drones, thereby raising mating chances, and can feed those drones well, increasing their chances of winning the mating competitions. More, stronger, males, and more swarms = more impact on the next generation.

What this means for us is that by selecting through productivity we're working with the grain of what works in nature. 

Furthermore, as long as we're not treating, we're automatically selecting those that are equipped with the best health, the best immune systems and and parasite removal mechanism. Selection for productivity wraps up everthing you want.

As soon as we start treating we lose that critical feature - and our population becomes more and more dependent on the treatments. And we lose the ability to discover which individuals are fitter, (Although we can say 'as long as I'm treating them they're 'fit' within my system of management'.) That describes where most beekeepers are right now.



Dave Burrup said:


> Natural selection is often contrary to our goals. I often wonder if we are selecting for a bee with greater pesticide tolerance.


Having a good understanding of natural selection and working with its grain, as it were, gives us a huge advantage as beekeepers. We can reduce the waste of the natural state - nature can be incredibly wasteful. We can get out of health problems much more rapidly than natural settings. Most of all we can avoid the traps of treatment-dependence and misunderstanding of the causes of health problems. It ain't varroa that's the problem - its treating against varroa that's the problem. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> How could you possibly select for traits when you have no idea what they would be in the first place?


The 'trait' of vivid self-sufficient health and vitality as evidenced by productivity is never unwelcome. Failing to propagate from the best according to those sorts of criteria is pretty much guarenteeing health problems down the line. That's just how life works. 



Daniel Y said:


> Natural selection creates a wide range of traits. this alone would not be acceptable to beekeeping which requires consistency and reliability.


Genetic diversity is desirable for long term heath reasons, but yes, a beekeeper doesn't want too much. the art of beekeeping works with that understanding and strives for optimum productivity while guarding against genetic narrowness.



Daniel Y said:


> Natural selection selects for the benefit of the mite as much as it does for the bee.


The bee and the mite are in a coevolutionary relationship. Given the opportunity the bee rapidly adapts to the new predator and the mite becomes a minor nuisance. Nature supplies that opportunity, which is why ferals in many places can now be kept without treatments. Treating beekeers remove the selective pressure that allows that to happen. 



Daniel Y said:


> It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.


That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.



Daniel Y said:


> Natural traits already exist and are across the board found to be undesirable.


Again, its hard to know what to say, because you are working from a position that's so wrong. The bee is in some sense entirely 'its natural traits'. Agricultural bees have some minor traits emphasised. Good beekeeping ensures those traits are maintained. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.



mike bispham said:


> That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.


Gee Mike, you believe that it is _nonsense _for "natural selection" to possibly cause extinction of the honeybee, but you simply cannot tell us why? :scratch: :s :lpf:



Surely you aware that other species have become extinct? Or do you still have live _dinosaurs _in your backyard?


:gh:

... we should simply accept _your word_ for the assertion that honeybees could not become extinct due to 'natural selection'? ....
... ... because you are never wrong? ... ... _nonsense _...

:ws:

.


----------



## Daniel Y

Mike I understand natural selection. I simply call it random luck. I do not buy your idea of what it is. Or it's expected outcome. What you think you want already exists. so why are you not head over heels about going and getting it? Because you don't want it any more than anyone else does. It is considered one of the many problems with beekeeping.

Do you have any real experience with breeding and what it takes to effect a change in a species? Breeding is not creating anything new it is only drawing to the foreground traits that have always been present. If nature in fact would draw forth resistance to mites. How did the bee ever become suseptable to them? Maybe because nature is not selecting in favor of the bee.

I believe that the methods of beekeeping have created an imbalance. one that favors the mite. and that the bees cannot overcome this imbalance. They never will. And the imbalance is so great that even our direct intervention cannot put much of a dent in it. Beekeeping in effect is more suited to keeping mites than it is to keeping bees. That would be why the mites continue even though we intentionally try to kill them while the bees die when we intentionally try to keep them. Maybe we need to take a close look at what we do that keeps mites so well?

So exactly what do you think nature would have to do with a honey bee to make it capable of overcoming this imbalance? My guess is it would look a lot like the AHB or worse. So you would have the mite resistant bee just in time to not care if bees had mites. Because you would have no further interest in keeping them. In fact attempts to kill the mite would end and attempts to kill the bee would begin. Isn't that pretty much what has in fact happened? Because those very same natural bees are considered a threat to our preferred bees.


----------



## crofter

Some survival mechanisms dont scale up well. Crowding a species by orders of magnitude and thus remove natural geographical separation guarantees contagion of pestilence. Nature would respond with die off to restore this natural coping mechanism but man supposes that he can select for properties in the bee (applies to most any life form) that will nullify the effects of the problem Man has created for it.

I have raised backyard flocks treatment free, but see how well that works for tens of thousands of birds (or cows, whatever) at a site and and other similar sites served by common supply and shipping processes.

We place too many diverse and often opposing demands on a species or breed and then find that they do not indeed quickly adapt defensive mechanisms or perhaps we are unhappy about the other qualities that come with (or disappear with) the new coping mechanism. There are too many conflicting dictates like short term vs long term economic bottom lines and many ideological valuations like free choice breeding or population control.

It is very easy to get distracted into treating symptoms instead of setting a course to deal with the underlying but driving force of a problem. Pesticide use is only one of the many facets of environmental interference we are desperately calling on to help us solve a serious quandary. Our economy is dependent upon exponential growth that we are trying to force fit into a world with finite limitations.


----------



## mike bispham

repeated


----------



## mike bispham

Daniel Y said:


> Mike I understand natural selection. I simply call it random luck.


That statement demonstrates again that you don't have a clear idea of what natural selection for the fittest strains is. 

There is random recombination of dna in the process of sexual reproduction. Natural selection then works on the results to bring forward the occurence of the fittest strains, and propel them into the succeeding generations. 

You've heard of natural selection Daniel, and you think you have a good understanding of it, but you clearly don't. From what I've seen so far you don't even have a basic understanding of evoltionary process that seeks out optimum fitness in each generatio - in natural settings.

This process is essential - not optional. If the huisbandry doesn't select, nature will select for him - by de-selecting an increasing proportion of his stock.



Daniel Y said:


> I do not buy your idea of what it is. Or it's expected outcome.


Neither natural selection for the fittest strains, nor gravity nor rain cares a jot about your understanding. They just are.



Daniel Y said:


> What you think you want already exists. so why are you not head over heels about going and getting it?


I am and I have. I've located and bred from feral bees, and they are mostly as healthy as I could want.



Daniel Y said:


> Because you don't want it any more than anyone else does. It is considered one of the many problems with beekeeping.


Not by me or by an increasing number of beekeepers. 



Daniel Y said:


> Do you have any real experience with breeding and what it takes to effect a change in a species?


Nobody is trying to effect a change in a species. What we are doing is selecting for those genes that create strong self sufficient bees here and now. In the main that about bringing the varroa coping mechanisms to the fore, swapping in the desired alleles. Its straightforward husbandry practice. 



Daniel Y said:


> Breeding is not creating anything new it is only drawing to the foreground traits that have always been present.


There you go, you already knew that.



Daniel Y said:


> If nature in fact would draw forth resistance to mites. How did the bee ever become suseptable to them?


Daniel, you need an education in the basic facts of husbandry, natural selection, and the relationship between them. New predators come to every species constantly, and the predated populations adapt to cope with them. That's an every-present fact of nature. The art of population husbandry consists being a step a head of the game, and minimising the damage



Daniel Y said:


> Maybe because nature is not selecting in favor of the bee.


Mites were introdued by beekeepers upon a population that had no barely any resistance to them. Yet that same population did carry the means to cope with them. All that was needed was for the most susceptable genes/alleles to decline and the least susceptable to advance as a proportion of the population. that the natural process. It has happened - many feral populations have recovered and are thriving again, and an increasing number of beekeepers are making good use of them.

In agricultaral populations however the pressure to adapt has been removed by systematic treatment. There is no therefore no progress, the required alleles are not being raised. 



Daniel Y said:


> I believe that the methods of beekeeping have created an imbalance. one that favors the mite.


Sure. Systematic treating will simply weaken the bee's ability to deal with them. That isn't stregthening the mites, its weakening the bees. 



Daniel Y said:


> and that the bees cannot overcome this imbalance. They never will.


Where natural selection has been denied due to treatments and breeding failure that will be the case. In feral populations its another story altogether. Bees and mites have co-evolved and mites are no more than a minor irritant. 



Daniel Y said:


> And the imbalance is so great that even our direct intervention cannot put much of a dent in it.


Tell that to my bees.



Daniel Y said:


> Beekeeping in effect is more suited to keeping mites than it is to keeping bees. That would be why the mites continue even though we intentionally try to kill them while the bees die when we intentionally try to keep them. Maybe we need to take a close look at what we do that keeps mites so well?


Failure to breed away from vulnerability to mites is what.



Daniel Y said:


> So exactly what do you think nature would have to do with a honey bee to make it capable of overcoming this imbalance?


I've outlined the answer to that above.



Daniel Y said:


> My guess is it would look a lot like the AHB or worse. So you would have the mite resistant bee just in time to not care if bees had mites. Because you would have no further interest in keeping them. In fact attempts to kill the mite would end and attempts to kill the bee would begin. Isn't that pretty much what has in fact happened? Because those very same natural bees are considered a threat to our preferred bees.


I don't know who considers them a threat, but anyone doing so is very mistaken. Nature promotes the strongest. That's the blood you want. Period. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> There is [HIGHLIGHT]random recombination of dna [/HIGHLIGHT] in the process of sexual reproduction. Natural selection then works on the results to bring forward the occurence of the fittest strains, and propel them into the succeeding generations.


If it is "random", then how does that make it the "fittest" strain? :s :scratch: Remember "random"?


----------



## mike bispham

crofter said:


> Some survival mechanisms dont scale up well. Crowding a species by orders of magnitude and thus remove natural geographical separation guarantees contagion of pestilence. Nature would respond with die off to restore this natural coping mechanism but man supposes that he can select for properties in the bee (applies to most any life form) that will nullify the effects of the problem Man has created for it.


He can do just that to a large degree, where he has sufficient control and the wisdom to know how to use it well. Husbandry is thousands of years old, and for most of that time was largely successful, with very little in the way of medical help. It thrived on the foundational dictum: Put only Best to Best'.

I agree, testing the limits finds disease to be a key limitation, and competitive economics tends to press for short-cut responses. Just because they succeed in some cases, at least for a while, doesn't mean its always a good idea. In the case of open mating bees, its about the daftest idea imaginable.



crofter said:


> Our economy is dependent upon exponential growth that we are trying to force fit into a world with finite limitations.


That's a mathematical reality that we really should pay more attention to.

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

duplicate post


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Originally Posted by mike bispham:
> 
> "There is random recombination of dna in the process of sexual reproduction. Natural selection then works on the results to bring forward the occurence of the fittest strains, and propel them into the succeeding generations."
> 
> [Graham]
> If it is "random", then how does that make it the "fittest" strain? :s :scratch: Remember "random"?


Graham. Read the second sentance. Now read it again. Now re-read the first sentance. 

Now re-read both sentances and try to somehow bring the meaning of each together into a single idea.

Think about it all some more. Look up a primer on Natural Selection for the Fittest Strains. Try to find one of those explanatory analogies involving dice so you can get clear about the random part. 

If you feel yourself gasping at some point, and get that feeling of a big light going on someplace in your head, you've probably got it. 

Good luck,

Mike (UK)


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Does this mean you DO have _dinosaurs _in your backyard, Mike? 

No? What happened to those "_fittest_" dinosaurs, Mike?



Why is that similar 'natural selection' issues could not _possibly _result in extinction of honeybees? :scratch:


:gh:


... I'm confident "I've probably got it" ... 
... ... now I'm wondering how to get _rid _of it! ... :lpf:


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Does this mean you DO have _dinosaurs _in your backyard, Mike?
> 
> No? What happened to those "_fittest_" dinosaurs, Mike?
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that similar 'natural selection' issues could not _possibly _result in extinction of honeybees? :scratch:
> 
> 
> :gh:
> 
> 
> ... I'm confident "I've probably got it" ...
> ... ... now I'm wondering how to get _rid _of it! ... :lpf:


You do know that our 'feathered friends' descended from dinosaurs? 

I see them all the time.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> You do know that our 'feathered friends' descended from dinosaurs? 

So are you saying that some of these _dinosaur species_ are alive today? :scratch:


If none of those listed species (see the link) are alive, then something similar _could _happen to honeybees, could it not?

Or perhaps WLC also believes that it is _impossible _for honeybees to become extinct through "natural selection"? :s



:gh:


... don't be bashful, your audience awaits ....


----------



## WLC

Honeybees ARE evolving.

The best piece of molecular evidence was found by Maori, et al. .

Remember the integrated IAPV sequence discovery and RNAi?

IMHO, with all of the stressors Honeybees are experiencing, they have to evolve.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC seems to have _declined _to take up the challenge of whether 'natural selection' could possibly result in the extinction of honeybees.

Apparently we will just have to wait for Mike to explain further.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> WLC seems to have _declined _to take up the challenge of whether 'natural selection' could possibly result in the extinction of honeybees.
> 
> Apparently we will just have to wait for Mike to explain further.


Of course natural selection can result in extinction. Species can be outcompeted and perish, or predated to extinction, and I imagine there are other ways too. Both those are inter-species affairs. 

I guess a species can also naturally select itself to extinction - though I think that would probably a result of environmental factors rather than internal competition. I suppose there might be cases where species did somehow take a wrong turn and find themselves, as it were, trapped. 

Its an interesting question, because if that were to happen would you say natural selection was the cause, or would you say environmental changes were the cause. (I can't think how, given a stable environment, a successful species could cause its own extinction. But I could be wrong)

Anyway... a far as I know the 200 odd million year old honey bee species is under no such threat. Human impact on its environment, and the mishandling of humans (beekeepers) are by far the biggest threat. But I don't reckon even our combined efforts threaten the species. 

So I reckon that question is moot as far as the topic is concerned.

Talking of waiting; have you got clear yet about how natural selection operates on the randomised recombination of dna to bring the fittest strains to the fore? 

Can you see how casinos and bookmakers use loaded odds to make reliable money from random events? 

Mike (UK)


----------



## garusher

actually i believe darwinism states that only 99.99% of a species will die from natural selection, the rest will adapt new traits. that is the beauty of nature.


----------



## mike bispham

WLC said:


> Honeybees ARE evolving.
> 
> The best piece of molecular evidence was found by Maori, et al. .
> 
> Remember the integrated IAPV sequence discovery and RNAi?
> 
> IMHO, with all of the stressors Honeybees are experiencing, they have to evolve.


They don't need to evolve in the sense of acquiring novel dna. They can adapt by simply switching to different alleles. I suppose in a sense that is evolving too - but in a lesser sense than that signified by the acquisition of novel dna by some means or other.

Mike (UJ)


----------



## mike bispham

garusher said:


> actually i believe darwinism states that only 99.99% of a species will die from natural selection, the rest will adapt new traits. that is the beauty of nature.


Can you provide a reference for that G? It seems like a dodgy claim to me. 

Mike (UK)


----------



## garusher

mike bispham said:


> Can you provide a reference for that G? It seems like a dodgy claim to me.
> 
> Mike (UK)


http://www.evolbiol.ru/large_files/shanahan2004.pdf

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-does-natural-selection-work

It is about the only piece of worthless information i ever remembered from biology class. lol


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

mike bispham said:


> Of course natural selection can result in extinction.


Wow!

It now seems that Mike _agrees _with Daniel Y's earlier post that he called nonsense! Let's review that ...


Daniel Y said:


> It is even possible that natural selection will cause the extinction of the honey bee.


Mike reponded ...


mike bispham said:


> That's plain nonsense Daniel, born of a poor understanding of natural selection. *Its so wrong I don't know what to say.


So "of course it could happen", but it is also "plain nonsense", is that it? :scratch:



No, I haven't "got that part clear yet" ... :gh:

.... 'poor understanding of natural selection' ... 



(click the blue arrow in the quote box to see the original post/thread)


----------



## garusher

natural selection does not result in extinction, otherwise nothing would exist. surely?
Mass genocide by human hands might cause extinction, but is not natural selection.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Well, many species have become extinct over the eons of time. If that is not a form of "natural selection", what is it?

I don't see a reason why extinction of individual species would not continue - regardless of what man might do.


----------



## lazy shooter

My son has a master's degree in entomology, and he believes that species have and always will become extinct. Dr. Hurt had a doctorate in Mathematics and philosophy, and he was fond of saying, "it will change." Occasionally, someone new to the conversation would say, "what will change." To which his standard answer was "everything."


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Well, many species have become extinct over the eons of time. If that is not a form of "natural selection", what is it?


Would you call being made extinct by a (natural) giant meteorite 'natural selection'?



Rader Sidetrack said:


> I don't see a reason why extinction of individual species would not continue - regardless of what man might do.


Of course it will. It happens all the time. That doesn't mean there is the slightest reason to think the honey bee is under any such threat.

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

I know of some reasons and those ar dogmatism and ideology.


----------



## mike bispham

Rader Sidetrack said:


> It now seems that Mike _agrees _with Daniel Y's earlier post that he called nonsense!


OK It is possible, but so unlikely as to be irrelevant. (There's nothing wrong with developing conversations exposing flaws in previous positions Graham. Its called constructive dialogue.)

We seem to be in a position of understanding that while new - or existing - predators might theoretically wipe out the honeybee, there is no reason at all to think that is a threat. And that most (99.5% was it) extinction causes are external to the species - that is species don't often (understatement) evolve themselves, as it were, to death. 

Back in the world of what actually happens, some of us understand that natural selection is the tendency to propagate much more from the fittest, resulting (through heritable traits and qualities) in the best of the present genes making more of the next generation than their competitors; and that this is necessary in order to stay ahead of the constant evolution of their predators - a term that includes micro-organisms and parasites. 

And that that means that any beekeeper who doesn't do the same will have natural selection do it for him - by deselecting his bees.

That's the reality. And the only bit we have to think about.

Mike (UK)


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> I know of some reasons and those ar dogmatism and ideology.


Darn book learning, eh Bernhard. Back the the forest, where real men learn real things, eh?

Mike (UK)


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

No Mike, no. You better keep up with the latest research. Here is the stuff that has been found out in 2014. Ten pages. Interesting stuff among it. 

http://scholar.google.de/scholar?as_sdt=0,5&q=varroa&hl=de&as_ylo=2014&as_vis=1


----------



## mike bispham

BernhardHeuvel said:


> No Mike, no. You better keep up with the latest research. Here is the stuff that has been found out in 2014. Ten pages. Interesting stuff among it.
> 
> http://scholar.google.de/scholar?as_sdt=0,5&q=varroa&hl=de&as_ylo=2014&as_vis=1


That's a google scholar result page Bernahrd. I'm sure there's tons of interesting stuff in those links. But what exactly is relevant to our discussion and why?

Mike (UK)


----------



## Kofu

After this discussion, I was interested to read BlueRidgeBee's Notes from a talk by Dr. Jeff Pettis, Beltsville Bee Lab given in North Carolina. From the Q&A:



BlueRidgeBee said:


> *Wild bees and other pollinators*: they are being impacted by same factors/chems as honeybees. 1 type of honeybee in US; 35K [species of] native pollinators. *Many show drastic declines.
> *
> Europe, other areas that have banned neonics -- grand experiment going on and he says. Data not in re: has the ban had impact. *What is known in US: when commercial bees are near ag crops, don't do as well as wild environments. Period.* Grand experiment going on in Europe, he hopes they are keeping good data. Good comparison can be attained on canola fields. *Neonics can be very persistent in soil* when not exposed to light, can last multiple years. Can get accumulation. Dandelions, for example (among others), can pull it up from soil and expose pollinators.


----------

