# New Study Shows Bees Become Disoriented After Neonics Exposure



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

"Tests show bees that have eaten syrup contaminated with the pesticides are unable to use their memory of landmarks in their surroundings to find their way back to their hives" = researchers poisoned the bees just like in the Harvard study.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I know you have a vested interest in spin (being a pesticide salesman...) but tell us, how would you have conducted the research? Why is it that you only find fault with research that shows negative impacts from neonics, and yet you love every bit of research--no matter how flawed--that purports to show no negative effect from neonics? Conflict of interest perhaps?



BlueDiamond said:


> "Tests show bees that have eaten syrup contaminated with the pesticides are unable to use their memory of landmarks in their surroundings to find their way back to their hives" = researchers poisoned the bees just like in the Harvard study.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

BigDawg said:


> Why is it that you only find fault with research that shows negative impacts from neonics, and yet you love every bit of research--no matter how flawed--that purports to show no negative effect from neonics?


Like Bayer and Syngenta, I have no problem with research where the investigators didn't artificially expose the bees to neonics. To date, however, it turns out the only research that shows negative impacts (aside from the planter dust off issue) involved cases where the researchers artificially exposed the bees to neonics, fungicides and/or diseases like Nosema.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

That's like car makers saying that they don't mind crash safety tests that show "real world collision damage" but that crash tests conducted in the lab using crash test dummies just aren't up to par.... Little more than smoke, mirrors, and red herrings from the industry trying to protect their profits.....

BTW, it would appear that the EPA doesn't share your disdain for lab studies on bees:

"While elaborate field studies can be designed, there may be confounding factors which limit, but do not entirely discredit, the utility of a study. *It is clear that field pollinator studies cannot be viewed in the same context as laboratory studies where experimental conditions can be strictly controlled.* Recognizing the complexity of conducting and interpreting field studies, EPA has made the best use of existing data."

Steve Bradbury, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs EPA





BlueDiamond said:


> Like Bayer and Syngenta, I have no problem with research where the investigators didn't artificially expose the bees to neonics. To date, however, it turns out the only research that shows negative impacts (aside from the planter dust off issue) involved cases where the researchers artificially exposed the bees to neonics, fungicides and/or diseases like Nosema.


----------



## Tenbears (May 15, 2012)

sorry but in my opinion this study demonstrated one thing. Bees that have been tampered with by researchers have trouble navigating. 
Since the researchers have no way of controlling the percentage uptake of the bees, and no comparison basis in the uptake of neonics under natural conditions by free roaming bees to use as a guideline. then this study holds no useful information other than to lend credence to the chicken little crowd. Just sayin!


----------



## jeffnmo (Mar 16, 2013)

I would have to agree with Tenbears on this force feeding bees neonic and trying to reach a real world conclusion is a bit of a stretch. Also for the EPA to be given a lot of credibility can open another can of worms. JMHO


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

Big dawg, you have to admit, gluing a transmitter an inch long and force feeding a know poison to them is in no way a real test...... I could have given you those results without spending a dime.......
In some kind of funded fantasy does that show you anything. now get a microdot the size of a mite, and some real world exposure to neonic crops and we learn a bit.

You can't be so Naive to think this is somehow the smoking gun in CCD can you??


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I think we need to know how the bees react when exposed to the witches brew of pesticide residues that they come into contact with on a daily basis. As the recent Pettis study shows, pollen samples from real world settings contain residues from over 20 different pesticides. One leading school of thought with CCD is that the bees are becoming disoriented by pesticides while out in the fields collecting pollen and nectar. There are now numerous studies showing that neonics--which are neural toxins--effect bees ability to orient and navigate. The million dollar question is: at what level of field exposure can bees ability to navigate and orient be impacted by neonics, and, is this cumulative level of exposure, over time, a factor in CCD? Frankly, I give the numerous studies like this one that show negative impacts from neonics exposure MUCH more relevance than pesticide industry studies that exposed bees (they think, not sure...lol) to neonic-coated canola for TWO WEEKS, then declared nenoics as not harmful to bees......


----------



## Delta Bay (Dec 4, 2009)

Worth having a listen. From the 2013 ABF Conference.

Dr James Frazier: http://abfnet.org/associations/10537/files/Dr.%20Jim%20Frazier.mp3.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

Lol, everyone gets their panties in a bunch over "force feeding." In order to get good data, you need to control the environment and isolate variables. As we saw with the Bayer-funded research on neonics canola, when you don't control variables (i.e. the control group that was NOT supposed to be exposed to neonics actually was....) then you get poor data that is of little value. Feeding the bees in the lab is just about the only way to control for these variables. The only real issue I have with the methodology is at what level of concentration the neonics are present in the food. Anyone who would dismiss such studies simply because the bees are beeing "force fed" must not have a very good idea about the scientific method and the need for replicable results.

For those who criticize the feeding of bees in the lab, what is your suggestion for a research methodology that would give more accurate results?



jeffnmo said:


> I would have to agree with Tenbears on this force feeding bees neonic and trying to reach a real world conclusion is a bit of a stretch. Also for the EPA to be given a lot of credibility can open another can of worms. JMHO


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

BigDawg said:


> The million dollar question is: at what level of field exposure can bees ability to navigate and orient be impacted by neonics, and, is this cumulative level of exposure, over time, a factor in CCD?


 It's already been mentioned time and time again that CCD is not a serious problem in areas where neonics are used most heavily: corn belt states, sunflower growing states, canola growing states. And it's already been mentioned many times that researchers don't find the bee's navigational abilities are impaired unless they expose the bees to neonics artificially in the lab.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

Thanks for sharing that, really fascinating research! I like that these are long-term field studies, i.e. conducted over a 6 year period. 

It's very interesting to hear about how the pesticide exposed hives show a 50% reduction in the number of nurse bees, and, that for at least a year post-exposure, everything seems fine. It's not until the second year that the colonies with reduced nurse bee numbers begin to collapse.



Delta Bay said:


> Worth having a listen. From the 2013 ABF Conference.
> 
> Dr James Frazier: http://abfnet.org/associations/10537/files/Dr.%20Jim%20Frazier.mp3.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

Why some hives DON'T get CCD is of little significance--the issue of importance is why some hives DO get CCD. Millions of smokers don't get lung cancer, but many smokers do. This doesn't in any way demonstrate that smoking doesn't cause cancer...



BlueDiamond said:


> It's already been mentioned time and time again that CCD is not a serious problem in areas where neonics are used most heavily: corn belt states, sunflower growing states, canola growing states.





> And it's already been mentioned many times that researchers don't find the bee's navigational abilities are impaired unless they expose the bees to neonics artificially in the lab.


Please cite the research where bees in the field were studied for navigational impairment.....


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

BigDawg said:


> For those who criticize the feeding of bees in the lab, what is your suggestion for a research methodology that would give more accurate results?


If a specific pesticide has unintended consequences in the real world that both the manufacturer of the pesticide and the regulatory authorities overlooked, then the beekeepers themselves are likely to take notice. Like when keeper Keith Jarrett mentioned a few days ago: "the fungicide Pristine [pyraclostrobin] is a death sentence on queen cell production. Most of the cell buildiers in Cali are kept far away from any almond blooming orchard during the month of March."


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I think one of the key points in Dr. Frazier's lecture is that the pollen tested from the migratory hives had *20 times* the pesticide residue as the non-migratory hives.



Delta Bay said:


> Worth having a listen. From the 2013 ABF Conference.
> 
> Dr James Frazier: http://abfnet.org/associations/10537/files/Dr.%20Jim%20Frazier.mp3.


----------



## gmcharlie (May 9, 2009)

so, if we take your theory on its face, then takeing 2nd year hives and running the test would be the only valuable way to tell.

Whats really missing here in all this debate and argument, is basic problem solving techniques. Every one of the test/experiments so far is based around testing a conclusion. so far none of which have born any real fruit.

Problem solving in this case is actually very simple. if you use lets say a Shainin problem technique. you need good hives and bad, find the differences. so find us some CCD hives, and let the real testing begin.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

BigDawg said:


> Why some hives DON'T get CCD is of little significance--the issue of importance is why some hives DO get CCD.


And this is your shortsightedness, IMO. Refusing to look at ALL the data.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

BigDawg said:


> Why some hives DON'T get CCD is of little significance--the issue of importance is why some hives DO get CCD.


Given that No hives in Australia get CCD despite heavy use of neonics, is it likely neonics cause CCD? Or more likely that some pathogen in some USA bees, but absent in Australian bees causes CCD?


----------



## jeffnmo (Mar 16, 2013)

it seems rather obvious to me that lab research (autopsy) should be done on all suspected CCD bees. At the same time testing of the hives themselves should take place. This would give us a true starting spot to start drawing conclusions. Also it appears to me that the greatest losses come with commercial beeks that transport bees long distances--- stress. Also these bees may be subject to a lack of natural forage thus not the mixture of nutrients non-migratories would have, Just the HO of a new beek.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I agree wholeheartedly Jeff! I've searched for some data on this, but have not been able to find much. Of course a post-mortem analysis is made much more difficult by the fact that researchers still don't really know what they are looking for. I understand that all CCD tested hives to date have tested positive for IAPV, though it is only considered a CCD marker--not the cause of CCD. As more and more data comes in and is made available to the public (published) it is becoming clear that a big part of the problem is the long-term, cumulative, sub-lethal impacts upon the bees from the plethora of pesticides and fungicides that they are exposed to when foraging. I think we will find that somewhere in the synergistic relationships between these various pesticides, coupled with stress from transportation and varroa, lies the cause of CCD.



jeffnmo said:


> it seems rather obvious to me that lab research (autopsy) should be done on all suspected CCD bees. At the same time testing of the hives themselves should take place. This would give us a true starting spot to start drawing conclusions. Also it appears to me that the greatest losses come with commercial beeks that transport bees long distances--- stress. Also these bees may be subject to a lack of natural forage thus not the mixture of nutrients non-migratories would have, Just the HO of a new beek.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

BigDawg said:


> it is becoming clear that a big part of the problem is the long-term, cumulative, sub-lethal impacts upon the bees from the plethora of pesticides and fungicides that they are exposed to when foraging. I think we will find that somewhere in the synergistic relationships between these various pesticides, coupled with stress from transportation and varroa, lies the cause of CCD.


http://beeinformed.org/2012/03/national-management-survey-respondents-losses-profile/
"There were few migratory beekeepers but they managed the vast majority of colonies represented in the respondent population (209,162 migratory colonies vs. 60,956 non-migratory colonies). Migratory beekeepers were beekeepers who moved a majority of their colonies, at least once, across state lines. *There was no difference between average losses between migratory beekeepers* (75 responses, average loss 30.3%) *vs. non-migratory beekeepers* (2,975 responses, average loss 34.2%)"

Thus we see that researchers to date have not found keepers that reside in heavy neonic / pesticide usage areas or migratory keepers suffer more CCD or losses from other causes.


----------



## jeffnmo (Mar 16, 2013)

Dawg; I agree and believe that while we strive for more info we all should put our energies into working to solve the problem. It's unfortunate that people want to hop on just one area of a mystery and not take the time to examine all aspects. So often chemicals have been approved for use and have turned out to have effects and reactions that didn't show up in testing because certain real life issues were not addressed. This often is not the result of neferious behavior but because consequences are not always thought all the way through.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

BigDawg said:


> I understand that all CCD tested hives to date have tested positive for IAPV,


...is there a citation for that?

deknow


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

deknow said:


> ...is there a citation for that?
> 
> deknow


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

BigDawg said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070906140803.htm


Seriously? Thats from 2007 bro. And no, no one (except for beeologics) believes this to be the case.


----------



## BigDawg (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm not sure what your point is relative to the year the article was published--data is data. I do know that there were some follow up studies/testing that found that not ALL the CCD colonies tested positive for IAPV, but I still think 90%+ did...Just a quick internet search shows at least a dozen published articles talking about IAPV as related to CCD, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say Beeologics are the only ones saying this....

These articles discuss it to some degree:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006481

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=6B3207386162E370DDE746A0C2B6B6A7.d01t01

http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.ppat.1001160



deknow said:


> Seriously? Thats from 2007 bro. And no, no one (except for beeologics) believes this to be the case.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

The idea that IAPV is highly correlated with CCD is outdated...it's what was being published in 2007.

The studies you point to don't support your claim that:


> I understand that all CCD tested hives to date have tested positive for IAPV,...


The studies you point to say things like:
" Data from an initial study in which investigators compared pathogens in honey bees affected by CCD suggested a putative role for Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus, IAPV. This is a single stranded RNA virus with no DNA stage placed taxonomically within the family Dicistroviridae. Although subsequent studies have failed to find IAPV in all CCD diagnosed colonies, IAPV has been shown to cause honey bee mortality."...in 2010.

Beeologics is the only place you will still find any emphesis on IAPV and CCD...because Beeologics is trying to market a vaccine for IAPV.

You can't discuss the current state of the science with old data...especially when that old data has been shown to be not true.

deknow


----------

