# Harvard study on neonics and bee deaths - download full text



## Beeslave

Catch the Buzz article

http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2012.04.05.17.00.archive.html


----------



## Scrapfe

Beeslave said:


> Catch the Buzz article...


Now that is way funny. :lpf: I wonder what other kinds of battery powered vibrating gizmos are out there that will also pollinate tomato blossoms.


----------



## Mrobisr

I am not saying what is causing CCD, but the science is still in the air. The insecticide is question was introduced in the 90's, but CCD was noticed in the 80's it just had a different name we need to be open to all possibilities.
http://tais.tamu.edu/newsletter/pdf/February 2012 Newsletter.pdf


----------



## camero7

If you read the study and not the press hype, all it proved is that if you feed bees insecticide they die. Nothing new or novel about that finding and certainly not the cause of CCD. Not every CCD hive was fed HFCS. Further, none of my hives collapsed this year and I had dead bees in the snow. It's a terrible study. Amazing that Harvard would have approved it.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



camero7 said:


> If you read the study and not the press hype, all it proved is that if you feed bees insecticide they die. Nothing new or novel about that finding and certainly not the cause of CCD. Not every CCD hive was fed HFCS. Further, none of my hives collapsed this year and I had dead bees in the snow. It's a terrible study. Amazing that Harvard would have approved it.


I have read the study and it is very good. What makes you think it's bad?

I very much recommend watching this video which shows a talk of the author of the study explaining why he did it and he also gives background information about the shocking results:

http://worcestercountybeekeepers.co...lication-of-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder


----------



## David LaFerney

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Forget calling it CCD - that's like "natural causes" it just means that they died and we don't know why. Except systemic pesticides making thousands of acres of forage toxic to all insects in general (it's intended purpose) is NOT natural causes. Neonics are almost certainly one of the major causes of hive collapse. If you were TRYING to kill bees you could hardly design a better tool for it. Even if it's not THE cause of "CCD" it's still a big problem - assuming we want to continue having bees.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



Stromnessbees said:


> I have read the study and it is very good. What makes you think it's bad?


Apply a little science to the study instead of blind acceptance.


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

The results were hardly shocking.
They fed bees enough insecticide to kill them...the 20ppb dose (the smallest dose they used) is the same dose the study claims whole kill bees....and according to the studies they cited, 0.1ppb should kill bees if fed over 10 days.
the symptoms they caused are not consistant with CCD....in fact, they didn't reference a single definition of CCD...just a superficial description.
no one has ever documented any imidacloprid in HFCS...they cite one.person claiming to have found unquantifiable levels....but no data (and the Harvard team claims.they can quantify down to 0.5ppb).
if you do watch the video, please note the explanation of bt corn....and if it makes sense, please explain it to me.

Deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

Mrobisr said:


> but CCD was noticed in the 80's


Really? How so and what was it called then?


----------



## jim lyon

I cant reference the exact year, if it was the 80's then it was the early 80's. They called it disappearing disease. I remember having bought some queens from Parks that year and getting a call later in the summer from them asking if I had noticed any disappearing disease. I thought he was joking at first but then he related a lot of experiences some folks out in California were experiencing. Of course this was the good old days of beekeeping when you could easily get devastated with massive losses from foliar spraying. Of course there was the federal indemnity program that reimbursed you if you got your claim in early enough before the funds ran dry.


----------



## sqkcrk

And Isle of Wight Disease before that. But, same thing.

My "winterloss" was 12% this year. Two friends report 5% and 7% each. These are beekeepers w/ more than 500 and the other 1,000 colonies. Is this an indication of a lessening of the problem? Probably just anecdotal evidence. It would be nice to think it otherwise.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



jim lyon said:


> I cant reference the exact year, if it was the 80's then it was the early 80's. They called it disappearing disease. I remember having bought some queens from Parks that year and getting a call later in the summer from them asking if I had noticed any disappearing disease. I thought he was joking at first but then he related a lot of experiences some folks out in California were experiencing. Of course this was the good old days of beekeeping when you could easily get devastated with massive losses from foliar spraying. Of course there was the federal indemnity program that reimbursed you if you got your claim in early enough before the funds ran dry.


... in other words, you cannot back up your claim at all.


----------



## Stromnessbees

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



deknow said:


> The results were hardly shocking.
> They fed bees enough insecticide to kill them...the 20ppb dose (the smallest dose they used) is the same dose the study claims whole kill bees....and according to the studies they cited, 0.1ppb should kill bees if fed over 10 days.
> the symptoms they caused are not consistant with CCD....in fact, they didn't reference a single definition of CCD...just a superficial description.
> no one has ever documented any imidacloprid in HFCS...they cite one.person claiming to have found unquantifiable levels....but no data (and the Harvard team claims.they can quantify down to 0.5ppb).
> if you do watch the video, please note the explanation of bt corn....and if it makes sense, please explain it to me.
> 
> Deknow


The significance of this study lies in the fact that the *imidacoprid didn't kill the bees until 3 months after the last treatment!
*
If you read the study carefully then you will have to admit that they didn't try to kill the bees, they wanted to show what long term effect very small doses have on the colony, and the effect was this: 

Of the treated hives* a staggering 94 % died of CCD like symptoms* while only one of the 4 controls died, but of different symptoms (dysentery).


Don't you think we should *start folow-up studies immediately to verify the effect*, or are you scared of such experiments?


----------



## Stromnessbees

sqkcrk said:


> And Isle of Wight Disease before that. But, same thing.
> 
> My "winterloss" was 12% this year. Two friends report 5% and 7% each. These are beekeepers w/ more than 500 and the other 1,000 colonies. Is this an indication of a lessening of the problem? Probably just anecdotal evidence. It would be nice to think it otherwise.



If you listen to the talk, you will find the explanation for the lessening of the problem.

Fact is that the pesticide companies knew all along that the neonics were causing CCD, so they lowered the pesticide concentration in the seed dressings, consequently CCD is not as prevalent anymore.

http://worcestercountybeekeepers.co...lication-of-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder

Another interesting detail from this talk: apparently the half-life of imidacloprid in soil is *20 years!*


----------



## WLC

While I felt that the study itself was mediocre, I do think that the hypothesis concerning contaminants in HFCS as being harmful to bees was important.

Now if they could actually find any such contaminants, let alone neonics, in HFCS.


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



Stromnessbees said:


> ... in other words, you cannot back up your claim at all.


Wait a minute, its all coming back to me now. I am certain it was 1982, I remember because it was the same year that the alien flying saucer crashed in Roswell. I will always believe that somehow those aliens were responsible and that the government was just covering it all up.


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



Stromnessbees said:


> The significance of this study lies in the fact that the *imidacoprid didn't kill the bees until 3 months after the last treatment!
> *


...yes...but the scattered bees, and the complete absence of bees (including queen and young workers) are not consistent with CCD. If this were written as a toxicity study it would be fine...but it was not...it was a claim of replicating CCD.



> If you read the study carefully then you will have to admit that they didn't try to kill the bees, they wanted to show what long term effect very small doses have on the colony, and the effect was this:
> 
> Of the treated hives* a staggering 94 % died of CCD like symptoms* while only one of the 4 controls died, but of different symptoms (dysentery).


if they weren't trying to kill bees, then why did they up the dosage after the first few weeks?
if _you_ listen to the presentation carefully, you will hear Dr. Lu say that when the bees hadn't died sooner he thought he had failed. .



> Don't you think we should *start folow-up studies immediately to verify the effect*, or are you scared of such experiments?


What effect? That a pesticide kills bees? 

My guess is that most of the syrup was stored (remember, they only fed 5lbs at a time...less than 1/2gallon)..we know from reading the study carefully that they fed all the colonies unspiked HFCS in the fall to bring them up to weight for winter. So, the bottom of the honey cap was filled with the clean syrup...as the winter progressed (and the researchers put sugar/hfcs patties on the hives for some unknown reason...drawing the bees up through the contaminated stores), the bees hit the spiked stores (do the bees concentrate HFCS before capping it?) and absconded. That's my best guess as to what happened.

But I'm certainly in favor of toxicity studies on free flying colonies...data based on what bees in a cage do are of little use....but a follow up of this one? That levels known to be toxic kill the bees? What's the point?



> Could you be trying to protect the business interest of a certain company?


Actually, I'm on record as being about as anti pesticide as one can be. If you google {worcester ALB dean stiglitz}, you can read about some of it as it relates to imidacloprid. You could also read the book I wrote with my wife if you were interested in keeping bees without pesticides.

But bad science is bad for everyone. If people are convinced to take action based on bad science and misleadingly written studies, then they can be equally convinced to take the opposite action based on other bad science.

I hate being put in the position of taking the "side" of the pesticide companies...but it is the only honest thing to do when faced with something like the Harvard study. I've read the study...and I've read most of the reference material cited in the study. It is difficult and time consuming to read a study with that level of detail to understand what is actually going on. Once you understand what this study did vs. what it claims, it becomes difficult to take someone seriously who says they have read the study and it is good. It gets even more difficult when they start accusing anyone who doesn't agree as some kind of secret beekeeper plant by the Bayer black helicopter division.

deknow


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

...even the Harvard press office understood that the symptoms that were induced were not consistent with CCD...which is why the press release contradicts the actual study (and the presentation), and states that some young workers were in the empty hives...there were not, but it makes the symptoms sound more like CCD.

deknow


----------



## lazy shooter

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

"Wait a minute, its all coming back to me now. I am certain it was 1982, I remember because it was the same year that the alien flying saucer crashed in Roswell. I will always believe that somehow those aliens were responsible and that the government was just covering it all up."

I think you are correct Jim. My wife's first cousin's first husband worked with a fellow whose brother was working as a wrecker driver in Rosland in that year. He was called out on a job and sworn to secrecy by the "Men in Black." He had the only wrecker in the area big enough to haul the demobilized space ship to the under ground secret cavern. To this day, he will not demonstrate the super secret hand shake required to enter the cavern. He claims to this day that the aleins brought bees on their space ship, and that they were deeply interested in our domestic bees. The NSA fellow that my wife's knew felt like the aliens civilization had failed due to CCD. My connection said the NSA people could not cipher CCD. It was a meaningless term to them at the time. All these many years later, CCD is still undefined.


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

This from Joe Waggle (who does an amazing job of tracking this stuff down):

In accordance with reporting every colony collapse as CCD, we must include 
the following die-offs as CCD events. Especially the 1794 instance in 
Edinburgh which IMO is highly symptomatic of CCD. 

950, 992 and 1443 Ireland In Ireland, there was a “great mortality of 
bees” (Flemming G (1871)

1794 Edinburgh, Midlothian
“The following extraordinary instance of the industry of Bees, happened 
this season in a bee hive the property of Mr. John Scotland, Merchant, 
Dunfermline. 
...What is very remarkable, when 
the hive was smoked, there were not above 200 bees in it..

1872 Wisconsin Janesville, 
“—A gentleman, in Fond du Lac, who usually keeps a great many bees, states 
that at least two-thirds of his bees died last winter. He thinks that from 
two-thirds to three-quarters of the bees in the county have died this 
year.”

1879 Illinois 
“Extraordinary Mortality among Bees… One large bee raiser in this State 
who had 220 swarms of bees has now only eighteen, and the other who had 
over 800 swarms has now not a single healthy hive of bees. It has been 
ascertained by correspondence that in New York and the New England States 
over 60 per cent, of the bees have died,..” 

1885 United States 
"The season of 1884-85 stands out in the history of American beekeeping as 
one of terrible devastation" (BEEKEEPING (1915) By E.F. Phillips Pg. 343)

1885 Iowa 
“…with great unanimity they denounce the honey dew as the cause of the 
unexampled and ruinous losses of bees during the past winter. One bee-
keeper loses fifty-one out of fifty-three colonies, and the two left, are 
miserably weak. Others have lost ninety-five per cent…” 

1904 United States 
"During the winter of 1903-04 probably seventy percent of the bees in New 
England died." (BEEKEEPING (1915) By E.F. Phillips Pg. 343)

1904 Wisconsin 
“Hard on the Bees. Bee keepers report that the present winter has been an 
exceptionally hard one on the swarms, and that as a consequence there will 
be a great loss to keepers….” 

1905 Texas 
“…Hard Winter and Too Much Rain Curtails Industry.…. …Phillips, president 
of the Nueces Valley Beekeepers’ Association, states … Last winter the 
beekeepers suffered a loss, of probably 50 percent of their stock, and the 
rains during the spring have been detrimental to the honey flow in the 
flowers up to this time.” 

1910 United States 
"....in 1909-10 the loss was probably fifty per cent in the northeastern 
United States." (BEEKEEPING (1915) By E.F. Phillips Pg. 343) 

1910 Nebraska 
“… The News learns that all, or nearly all, of the bees in this part of 
the state were killed by the severe winter. The owners of a large number 
of hives on examination find that the bees died In the early part of 
winter. This means a shortage in the honey crop. There is now and then a 
hive where there are a few live bees and in some instances a hive or two, 
out of many, escape, but the slaughter was the worst known in this section 
for years.” 

1912 United States 
"The winter of 1911-12 was also one of heavy mortality, the actual death 
of colonies costing the beekeepers in the eastern United States millions 
of dollars." (BEEKEEPING (1915) By E.F. Phillips Pg. 343) 

1912 Illinois 
“The honey crop In central Illinois, will be light this season, due to the 
fact that many of the Insects were killed by the severe temperature of 
last winter. “

1917 California 
“…Winter losses of bees range from 10 to 15 per cent, and in some states 
the loss was almost 50 per cent during the winter of 1916-17,…”

1996 New York 
“Two ferocious mites are decimating a bee population already weakened by 
two straight harsh New York winters….” "It's devastating." Just ask 
commercial beekeeper John Earle of Locke, who lost 70 percent of his 900 
hives to the mites…”


----------



## jim lyon

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Finally! Some answers and some good science. uhhhhhh that would be Lazy Shooter, not sure what Dean is rambling about


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

...sorry, I was distracted by my conference call...I'm waiting for my orders from the home office (Bayer) on what I should post next. It is top secret, so it is coming via BHC (black helicopter courier)...shhhh, don't tell...i'm going to have an inground pool installed in the shape of a crop duster with the $$$$$).

...does that make more sense?

deknow


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

..more from Joe....

Report of the Secretary of Agriculture 
By United States Dept. of Agriculture

=====Article Start=====

Agricultural Report 
Statistics of Beekeeping

During the past season a disease suddenly appeared in several states, 
sweeping away whole apiaries. So quiet were its operations that the bee-
keepers became aware of its existence only by the disappearance of their 
bees. The hives were left, in most cases, full of honey, but with no brood 
and little pollen; the whole appearance of the hive causing the casual 
observer to suppose that the bees had "emigrated;" but close observation 
showed that they had died. We give a number of accounts from various 
correspondents, principally from the states where this disease first raged.

Jesse R.. Newson, Bartholomew County, Indiana, says: "With an experience 
of twenty-five years, I have not seen so disastrous results among bees as 
in the present year. We generally feel that all is well with our bees, if 
they have succeeded well in laying up a winter supply of food. I have lost 
nineteen stands since the first of November; in some of them as many as 
forty pounds of honey were left, looking very nice, and tasting as well as 
any I ever saw; no sign of moth or any thing wrong that I could see. The 
bees seem to die without a cause. The stand twenty years old is yet 
living. We find in nearly every stand plenty of food, but "what ails the 
bees? What the remedy? If something is not done to stop this fatality, 
this pleasing and useful pastime will be taken from us, and our tables 
will be robbed of honey."

A. Leslie, Pike County, Indiana, says: "Nearly all our bees have died in 
this county, perishing mostly in November, supposed to be for want of bee-
bread."

S. G. Bates, Boone County, says: "The mortality among the bees this winter 
cannot be accounted for, since they have plenty of food. Out of twelve 
hives I this day took three hundred pounds of honey"; not a young bee to 
be found; the comb clear and healthy. My opinion is, that the queen, from 
some reason, not having deposited eggs, is the cause of their death."

T. J. Conuett, of Austin, Scott County, Indiana, says: "There is a disease 
prevailing to an alarming extent among our bees this fall that is entirely 
new, nobody being able to find any cause or remedy. Old and substantial 
swarms die, leaving the hive full of honey and bee-bread. Full three-
fourths of the swarms are dead, as far as I have heard from them."

J. N. Webb, Newcastle, Henry County, Kentucky, says : " There were no 
swarms last spring, so far as is known. The bees, however, continued 
to work and lay up their stores until some time in August, or early in 
September, when, to the consternation and utter surprise of the bee-
raiser, they were all found to have died. Many swarms left well-stored 
stands of excellent honey, amply sufficient to carry them through the 
winter; and what is more strange, comparatively few of the bees were 
found dead at the hives. What was the cause of the wholesale destruction 
of this useful and interesting insect, dying in the midst of plenty, away 
from its hive, we cannot understand. Up to the time when the discovery was 
made, no frosts had come, no atmospheric change had taken place, out of 
the ordinary course, and in fact nothing to which it may have been 
rationally attributed."

T. Hullman, jr., of Terre Haute, Indiana, writes as follows: " In 
September last, when the first cold weather set in, my bees began to die. 
First, I found in one of my best stands, with all the frames full of 
sealed honey, and some honey in boxes, the bees all dead. After that the 
bees began to die in all my stands, mostly pure Italians, and some 
hybrids. First, about one-third of the bees would be found dead; next, I 
would find the queen lying dead before the hive; and in about a week more, 
the whole colony would be found dead in and around the hive. Sometimes the 
queen would live with a handful of bees. The hives were full of honey, 
gathered the latter part of the season ; and the smallest had enough for 
the bees to winter upon. In this way I have lost forty stands, and have 
now only fifteen skeleton colonies, which I think will also perish before 
spring. At first I thought I was the only victim, but I have ascertained 
that all the bees in this neighborhood have died, and as far as thirty 
miles north and eighteen south. Yesterday I saw a letter from Kentucky, 
from a man who thought his bees had stampeded in the same manner as mine, 
to the hive of mother-earth. Some colonies had broods others had not. Late 
in October all the queens commenced laying again. To some colonies I gave 
three queens in about two weeks, and they lost each in turn."

The true cause of the disease has not been discovered. Some attribute it 
to the want of pollen; some to poisonous honey; and some to the unusually 
hot summer. Whatever may be the cause, the effect has been most 
disastrous, throughout these two States.

=====End Article=====


It may appear CCD is making a resurgence. You may perhaps have noticed 
the old writing style, or terms used in the Agriculture Report. If you 
have, good work, because the article is from 1869, reporting on the 
honeybee mortality of 1868.

Is history repeating itself? There are a few similarities, not only with 
some of thesymptoms, but more strikingly, in the human reaction. 

As the CCD of today has some calling it the AIDS of bees, In the years 
following the 1868 bee mortality, that disease has been paralleled to 
another disease feared by humans at that time, -Cholera. The bee disease 
of 1868 became known as “Bee Cholera”.

In fact, in the years following the 1868 bee mortality, the panic was so 
severe with consumers, newspaper reports state that “consumers refuse to 
buy what is called Bee Cholera Honey, -where the bees have died of this 
disease, consumers don’t like it, and the doctors think it is dangerous to 
life.”

In 1869, fear spreads amongst beekeepers the same as with today’s CCD, 
which as in both instances, created a need for blame. During the Bee 
Cholera die off, articles in the Bee journals quote beekeepers as 
saying: “Bee Cholera was not known in the United States until the Italian 
bee was introduced”, and the belief that the Italian bee was to blame 
endured for years.

In the article below, please find the symptoms associated with the Bee 
Cholera,of 1868, so you can make your own diagnosis. 

Page 34 Annals of Bee Culture

The Bee Cholera of 1868.

By D. L. Adiar.

During the fall of 1868 and following winter, honey bees died in
great numbers throughout a large portion of the States of Ohio,
Indiana and Kentucky, in a manner not before noticed in diseases of
that insect. All the bees in some large Apiaries died or disappeared, and
over large districts scarcely a colony escaped, and the few that still 
survive
are in a diseased and weak condition. From my own observation,
and a correspondence with parties, in different parts of the infected
district, I have ascertained the existence during the fall and winter of
following unusual conditions of the hives.

1. The honey stored by the bees from about the 20th of July was of
a bad quality. When taken from the hives it fermented in a short while,
and a great deal of it fermented in the hives.

2. The honey not only fermented in the cells that were uncapped, but
in those that had been sealed up.

3. The fermentation partially decomposed the wax covers of the cells,
turning them an ashy gray, giving them a bleached or faded appearance,
and bubbles or froth oozed through.

4. The honey was of a peculiar reddish color, and somewhat turbid,
and of a bitter disagreeable taste.

5. In the first stages of the fermentation, the honey was viscous, slimy
or ropy. It afterwards lost its viscous character, and emitted an odor
like rancid butter, which I suppose to be butyric acid, developed perhaps
by the decomposition of the wax. The honey up to this time (1st of
Feby. 1869) still retains some of that odor, and is yet turbid.

6. The bees did not commence dying until the honey in the hives
showed fermentation, about the 20th of August.

7. There was an unusual activity about the diseased hives, the bees
flying in great numbers before and around the hives, and excitedly
running in and out, apparently greatly confused or disturbed.

8. The abdomen of the bees, after death, was considerably swollen, and
filled with an offensive fluid, and some of them are now, after being dead
four months, as soft and pliant, as if they had just died, not having
stiffened or dried up in the least

From these observations I infer that the disease was induced by the
unhealthfulness of the honey.

Best Wishes,
Joe
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles/


----------



## sqkcrk

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Yes, history is repeating itself w/ periodic diebacks of bees. It seems to happen cyclically (sp?).

AIDS = Apiary Inspector Disease Syndrom. This was first stated in an article in The Speedy Bee many years ago. A cpl of decades ago actually, I believe.


----------



## camero7

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Nice post Dean


----------



## Scrapfe

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Dean, I wish to double camero7's comment.


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Please give the credit where it is due...to Joe Waggle....he does an incredible job with his historical research and references.

deknow


----------



## deknow

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

Some of this fits the CCD symptoms much better than the Harvard study does.

deknow


----------



## Ted Kretschmann

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*

You need to Contact Dr. Jeff Pettus and let him fill you in on the collapse that happened in Alabama back in the early 90's. It was the first incident of CCD like symptoms in the USA other than the "disappearing diseases" that happen cyclical from 1972 on back into history. Which brings me to the point of the posting. A lot of colonies that have died from CCD in the past few years are not located near crops sprayed with pesticides. These apiaries are located out in woodlots and pastures. Nor were they moved to crops for pollination purposes. They are located in a closed border state were it takes a compliance agreement to cross the border with bees on comb. So there is more than one culprit as has been suggested in scientific data for the cause of CCD. TED


----------



## Mrobisr

sqkcrk said:


> Really? How so and what was it called then?


And while the rest of us try to logically figure out what is happening to our bees you are hung up on the name versus the symptoms/end results, lol.:applause:


----------



## Fusion_power

I guess I'm hung up on "accuracy". The reports noted above should be given due credence. Mass bee die-off's have happened for a very long time. We don't even begin to have an idea of all the possible causes.

DarJones


----------



## sqkcrk

Mrobisr said:


> And while the rest of us try to logically figure out what is happening to our bees you are hung up on the name versus the symptoms/end results, lol.:applause:


If you will delve into History, it has always been so. None of the past die offs resulted in conclusive evidence as to what exactly killed off mass numbers of bees, other than the AFB Epidemic of the early 20th Century. The cause of the Isle of Wight Disease was supposedly tracheal mites. But, I don't think there was evidence to prove it.

People have been spending umpteen millions of dollars and hours of labor trying to figure out what is causing what we now call CCD. Calling it by a name is what gave us a handle to intellectually grab onto it and go in front of Congress for funding for research and indemnity programs. So, calling it something is important, don't you think?

Consumption became Cancer, which scares the beejeezus out of folks. Scaring people leads to funding research.


----------



## sqkcrk

Fusion_power said:


> I guess I'm hung up on "accuracy". The reports noted above should be given due credence. Mass bee die-off's have happened for a very long time. We don't even begin to have an idea of all the possible causes.
> 
> DarJones


If beekeepers would deal w/ the things which kill their bees in an effective manner we could reduce diebacks by a great percentage. I haven't seen a recent AIA report on what colony deaths across the Nation are attributed to by category, but, CCD related causes of colony mortality were a small portion of the 30% winterloss of a cpl of years back. And this years winterloiss seems less amongst folks that I know of and hear of.

So, if people can address problems which can be addressed, starvation, varroa mites, etc., maybe we could just accept that there are some colony mortalities which we can't diagnose and just get on w/ our beekeeping w/out bemoaning a small percentage of loss.


----------



## jim lyon

sqkcrk said:


> So, if people can address problems which can be addressed, starvation, varroa mites, etc., maybe we could just accept that there are some colony mortalities which we can't diagnose and just get on w/ our beekeeping w/out bemoaning a small percentage of loss.


I heartily concur. Perhaps I am in a minority here, perhaps not but had I not been reading all the reports about the plight of the honeybee in recent years, I would be totally unaware that there was some sort of crisis in the industry. It's just been business as usual for us since I first read the thread which I believe was titled "Bees dying in Florida/Georgia".


----------



## BoBn

Here is an article coauthored by Dennis vanEngelsdorp:
http://www.beeculture.com/content/C...byn M. Underwood and Dennis vanEngelsdorp.pdf
Similar to the historical list that deknow posted. The fact that there have been mass die-offs of honeybee populations in the past does neither prove no disprove any effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees. It is irrelevant to a discussion of neonicotinoids, it can be presented as an argument just as a "the gamblers fallacy" in having some belief in "runs" that are independent of statistics, but it is irrelevant.

Here is a more recent article coauthored by Dennis vanEngelsdorp which demonstrates the effects of imidacloprid (at levels of exposure commonly encountered) on honeybee health.


> The finding that individual bees with undetectable levels of the target pesticide, after being reared in a sub-lethal pesticide environment within the colony, had higher Nosema is significant. Interactions between pesticides and pathogens could be a major contributor to increased mortality of honey bee colonies, including colony collapse disorder, and other pollinator declines worldwide.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/p1027164r403288u/fulltext.html


----------



## deknow

BoBn said:


> The fact that there have been mass die-offs of honeybee populations in the past does neither prove no disprove any effects of neonicotinoids on honeybees.


...and the corollary is that demonstrating that insecticides are toxic to insects says nothing about the cause of dieoffs. This is what we are discussing here...the study in question claims to connect imidacloprid and a series of bee die offs...yet the symptoms of the dieoffs don't match the induced symptoms by feeding imidacloprid. The facts are that die offs (boom and bust) are an integral part of insect populations. The historical record is that there have been dieoffs that resemble what is being reported today since well before neonics were invented.




> Here is a more recent article coauthored by Dennis vanEngelsdorp which demonstrates the effects of imidacloprid (at levels of exposure commonly encountered) on honeybee health.


...except that the effect was only observed in caged trials...Jeff Pettis is quoted as saying that they did not see the same effect on free flying colonies. They also did some curious things....like not testing the bees that died in the cages for imidacloprid residue. Bees are not bees when they are in cages.

deknow


----------



## jonathan

deknow said:


> . Bees are not bees when they are in cages.
> deknow


Exactly. If we consider a bee colony to be a superorganism with all its age dependent differentiation of tasks and functions carried out by each and every individual bee, what do we learn from holding a single bee in a little glass tube and feeding it some toxin or other until it dies. The results of the field studies are what matters which is where the RFID studies may prove to be very helpful.


----------



## BoBn

deknow said:


> ...except that the effect was only observed in caged trials...


Strange how caged bees can drift between colonies and go out to forage on crops.:


Jeffery S. Pettis said:


> We also found traces of imidacloprid in bees and bee bread collected from control colonies. This imidacloprid exposure in our controls may have been the result of bee drift between experimental colonies and/or from exposure resulting from foraging on treated agricultural crops in the vicinity.





deknow said:


> not testing the bees that died in the cages for imidacloprid residue





Jeffery S. Pettis said:


> no imidacloprid residues could be found in the newly emerged worker bees challenged in our study (Table 1), (3) our test bees could only have received pesticide exposure during larval development, thus (4) pesticide exposure to test bees could only have been indirectly from brood food from nurse bees (Winston 1987) that were exposed as they fed on imidacloprid-spiked protein.


How do you test for a substance that is known to be below detection limits of a testing procedure?


----------



## Scrapfe

BoBn said:


> ... How do you test for a substance that is known to be below detection limits of a testing procedure?


I don't know. Maybe the same test used for Alien abductions?


----------



## D Coates

*Re: Imidacoprid linked to CCD*



Stromnessbees said:


> ... in other words, you cannot back up your claim at all.


Interesting how backing up claims is so important after your "Chemtrails" and "Pro pesticide shills" posts. It appears this claim was supported pretty thoroughly. For future posts how about giving the same consideration by supporting your claims equally as well.


----------



## deknow

BoBn said:


> Strange how caged bees can drift between colonies and go out to forage on crops.:


Errr, it would make for a more interesting discussion if you actually read the study you are bringing up and defending. The exposure to imidacloprid was performed in free flying colonies. Bees were later collected (as brood? I don't remember, it's been a few months since I read the study) from the free flying colonies and placed in cages for some period of time. I believe that the nosema exposure was performed in the cages...again, I don't recall exactly, perhaps you will read the study and remind me. 

The bees that didn't die in the cages after X days were tested for nosema. The bees that did die before X days in the cages were not.



> How do you test for a substance that is known to be below detection limits of a testing procedure?


Apologies, I may have misspoken. As I detailed above, it was nosema that was not screened in the bees that died prematurely (from control and experimental colonies). Again, the study isn't fresh in my head.

deknow


----------



## deknow

jonathan said:


> The results of the field studies are what matters which is where the RFID studies may prove to be very helpful.


Here lies another problem with the greater dialog.
Someone (or some group) brings up study X, Y, and Z and claim they all support their position.

Reading any of these studies, looking up the references, and giving a fair evaluation is a lot of work. If I've read "study Z", and I know that the claims are not supported, or that it has serious flaws, then I know a few things:

1. The evidence isn't as strong as what is being claimed
2. The person I'm talking to either hasn't read the study closely, or they are dishonest and hope that I will take their evidence at face value.

...in short, I know that the person I'm talking to has proven unwilling or unable to evaluate the available data competently.

Of course, after study Z is discounted, the claim is, "but there is still studies X and Y".

An important step is missing if those commenting on a study haven't read it closely enough to know what it says.

I'm looking forward to reading the RFID studies closely...but thus far the same sources that have been promoting them have been promoting the Harvard study....and I know what the Harvard study says.

deknow


----------



## WLC

The only study that will ever count is one where the treatment produces CCD at will, and also provides detailed evidence for why the symptoms associated with CCD occur.

The studies being discussed are pretty much peripheral to the CCD issue itself.


----------



## jonathan

deknow said:


> 2. The person I'm talking to either hasn't read the study closely, or they are dishonest and hope that I will take their evidence at face value.


I think a lot of folk haven't read more than the abstracts. That's not good enough if you are arguing a position. To be fair though, some of the studies are not open access.

Re the RFID studies, the Schneider et al study published at the start of the year did not detect neonicotinoid problems at field realistic levels.


----------



## jredburn

if you want some straight talk about CCD watch
http://mainebeekeepers.org/information-for-beekeepers/videos/dennis-vanengelsdorp-2011-annual-meeting/
Do a search on Dennis van Engelsdorp and listen to what he has to say. He cuts out a lot of the BS>
Regards
Joe


----------



## BoBn

Land invertebrates are difficult to study the effects of the exposure to contaminants. We have accepted standards for bioassays for aquatic Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas and Mercenaria mercenaria but, bioassays are not a requirement for introducing a new contaminant into the environment.

Terrestrial vertebrate testing we have standards for mice, rats and dogs, but bioassays are rare and are not a requirement. Toxicity testing should also be performed on annelids, insects and birds. There must be a reason why we cannot reach a consensus on an acceptable standard for a bioassay of a land invertebrate. 

Oh yeah. . I forgot. It cost industry too much. Let the taxpayers pay for the cleanup years and decades later. 

Want to look at history repeating itself? There is an extensive chronology. We don't like to think about those things. We just palm it off someone else to take care of. 
Want to look at a resource map of a typical small town in the USA of known groundwater contamination? How about an overlay map of the same town from the CDC of pancreatic cancer cases? What about 300 maps of different towns in the USA?
You can't prove it. All we can do is demonstrate that there are health effects associated with something.
Mathematics itself is only a theory.


----------



## BoBn

deknow said:


> .Jeff Pettis is quoted as saying that they did not see the same effect on free flying colonies.
> deknow


I would be surprised if the same effect was found since the experimental control colonies likely had lower levels of contamination than are typically found in the field. This would be akin to doing an air pollution study in Toronto, Canada expecting to have the same results in Mexico citiy.



jonathan said:


> Exactly. If we consider a bee colony to be a superorganism with all its age dependent differentiation of tasks and functions carried out by each and every individual bee, what do we learn from holding a single bee in a little glass tube and feeding it some toxin or other until it dies.


We find the assumed level of acute toxicity. That is the typical research done by labs to find the lethal dose of a contaminant. It is usually all that is done to evaluate the risks to honeybees. 

In many ways, honeybees are unique in that they do not easily fit in established research methods for chronic exposure. 
How do you measure average weight gain of the bees?
How do you compare life span?
What about 2nd and 3rd generation effects?
Reproductivity? What about wax production, or royal jelly? What are the standards?

The problem with field research is that there is an exponential increase in the cost of the research. By introducing dozens of new inherent variables then 100s of more replications are required. The more expensive the research, the less information that is available.

It would make more sense to do most of the background chronic and long-term exposure research on a surrogate such as bumblebee from the same genetic source material, since it would be less expensive, more reproducible, and take less time. 

There should be some established long-term exposure health effect standards for honeybees.


----------



## deknow

BoBn said:


> ...since the experimental control colonies likely had lower levels of contamination than are typically found in the field.


...why would that be the case? What levels of contamination are typically found in the field? Which field...and when?

Of course the control colonies were "in the field", and some imidacloprid was found in both the beebread and in randomly aged workers.

In fact, one of the control groups had a large dieoff in the cage....there were not 20 bees left alive to sample, only 11. ...did individuals in this control group die from nosema? ...have a high concentration of imidacloprid metabolites? Wouldn't that be relevant to the results?


> It would make more sense to do most of the background chronic and long-term exposure research on a surrogate such as bumblebee from the same genetic source material, since it would be less expensive, more reproducible, and take less time.


...dumbing down an experiment to make it reproducible makes sense in some areas...but if what we want to know is how honeybees do things, we have to study honeybees. If results are only reproducible in bumblebees, how relevant are they to honeybees?



> There should be some established long-term exposure health effect standards for honeybees.


I think that is putting the cart before the horse...we can't establish standards without first knowing risks and effects. To determine these, we need good research. Poor science only holds us back and prevents us from determining what standards should be in place.

Trying to play "gotcha" without reading the study (in trying to show that I was wrong in calling the Pettis study a caged study) is nothing more than a time waster.

deknow


----------

