# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Second trial replicating CCD with neonicotinoids.

## Johnthefarmer

Here is a Japanese report of an apiary-based trial on the effects over time on bee colonies, of various levels of two neonicotinoids which are routinely sprayed on Japanese rice paddies.
 To crudely summarise, all colonies fed neonics died with CCD symptoms; the controls did fine.

 There are problems with the quality of the translation, and it's possible that some forum members may criticise some of the trial parameters and methodology. 

 Nevertheless, on the back of the Harvard study, this is a clear support for the case against neonicotinoids, is it not?

See:

http://www.bijensterfte.nl/sites/def...%282012%29.pdf

----------


## Jon

> To crudely summarise, all colonies fed neonics died with CCD symptoms; the controls did fine.


You need to get your head around the difference between ppm and ppb!

neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar are found at the ppb level, 1-5 ppb typically.

The Harvard study also fed bees pesticide at massive doses and claimed ccd when the bees were killed.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> You need to get your head around the difference between ppm and ppb!
> 
> neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar are found at the ppb level, 1-5 ppb typically.
> 
> The Harvard study also fed bees pesticide at massive doses and claimed ccd when the bees were killed.



Don't patronise me. (ppm/ ppb)

The levels fed were equivalents of varying dilutions (X 10, X 50, X 100) of the commercial spray levels, and ,as such, quite reasonable for this study.

I'm suprised you never mentioned this trial if you already knew about it , or did you just read it in ten minutes?

----------


## Jon

I read it earlier in the week. Someone posted it on biobees. The ppm/ppb thing is what renders it pointless. We all know that massive doses of pesticide are toxic.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I read it earlier in the week. Someone posted it on biobees. The ppm/ppb thing is what renders it pointless. We all know that massive doses of pesticide are toxic.


So we all accept that if bees take up neonics from a sprayed crop at a hundredfold dilution of the actual spray strength, three months later the colony collapses?

----------


## Jon

Bees feed on pollen and nectar. You need to test at the levels found in pollen and nectar. They don't feed on spray.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Bees feed on pollen and nectar. You need to test at the levels found in pollen and nectar. They don't feed on spray.


 Surely, the point is that these colonies, which had access to alternative food sources, as well as neonic-laced syrup, wilted and died over several months displaying classic CCD symptoms.
  When crops are sprayed, bees will take water, nectar, and pollen with varying levels of pollution. This study replicates such a range.
 Yes, there could be other trials with lower levels, for longer or shorter time periods,but none of the other threats to bees have been so clearly shown to produce CCD.

----------


## Jon

We have neonicotinoids used widely in the UK and we don't have ccd.

Neither this study nor the harvard study demonstrate CCD. Both demonstrate that bees die eventually when faced with massive doses of pesticide but surely that is not news.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> We have neonicotinoids used widely in the UK and we don't have ccd.
> 
> Neither this study nor the harvard study demonstrate CCD. Both demonstrate that bees die eventually when faced with massive doses of pesticide but surely that is not news.


   This Japanese study also found that, contrary to pesticide licensing rules, dinotefuran does not significantly degrade in sunlight i.e. it is both systemic and persistent, which clearly increases its toxicity.

----------


## Jon



----------


## Bumble

> Nevertheless, on the back of the Harvard study, this is a clear support for the case against neonicotinoids, is it not?


I believe the Harvard Study lost credibility mainly because the high doses administered was not field realistic.

This one seems to be the same. (I have read it, a couple of time.) Bees will go for an easy meal, and giving them feeders full of syrup laced with high doses of insecticide is not the same thing as bees foraging, taking nectar and pollen from flowers and collecting water from dew, pig urine or whatever else happens to suit them.

I'll stand by what I've said before - if UK bees are dying and colonies are collapsing because of what's being put on Oil Seed Rape seeds then why are beekeepers, both hobby and commercial, still taking their colonies to fields of the stuff?

I saw, this year, one apiary with hives inches away from a barbed wire fence, which was in turn inches away from rape plants. The very experienced beekeeper didn't seem to be either a fool or a bee murderer. He was happy, his bees were happy and actually gave him a good honey crop.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> He was happy, his bees were happy .


But it is ,I suggest, likely that, even with its low, 1 to 6 ppb, load of neonics the osr will leave the bees weaker and less robust- more suseptible to varroa etc. and needing increased support in the winter months.

  The trial in question dealt, quite justifiably, with higher concentrations because direct spraying on to foraged crops would expose bees to well over the much-quoted 6 ppb, and this scenario they demonstrate produces ccd.

----------


## Jon

> But it is ,I suggest, likely..


Can we trouble you for evidence?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Can we trouble you for evidence?


no, not tonight. it's just a kinda, you know, gut feeling...

----------


## Bumble

> But it is ,I suggest, likely that, even with its low, 1 to 6 ppb, load of neonics the osr will leave the bees weaker and less robust- more suseptible to varroa etc. and needing increased support in the winter months.


So you say.

The bees collect nectar and pollen from OSR. The pollen is turned into bees, the nectar into honey, much of which is harvested by the beekeeper once the OSR is finished. The bees then forage elsewhere for the rest of the season, and raise more bees.

How many of the bees that foraged on the OSR will be going into winter?

I find it hard to believe that you honestly think that an experienced beekeeper with many tens of hives is going to risk their livelihood by taking their colonies onto a crop that will kill their bees during the next winter.




> The trial in question dealt, quite justifiably, with higher concentrations because direct spraying on to foraged crops would expose bees to well over the much-quoted 6 ppb, and this scenario they demonstrate produces ccd.


And how often, in UK, is the stuff that was tested in Japan sprayed directly onto crops and at a time of day when it won't dry, so it stays there long enough for the bees to drink it?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> And how often, in UK, is the stuff that was tested in Japan sprayed directly onto crops and at a time of day when it won't dry, so it stays there long enough for the bees to drink it?


You're quite right, the Japanese trial was on clothianidin and dinotefuran ,which they spray on rice paddies against stinkbug. This is rare in UK.

 They hypothecate that the whole colony is disrupted in many different ways by the neurotoxins depending on dose level and duration. Immediate deaths, requiring bees to change jobs, weakened immune systems, queen stops laying, etc. eventually ccd.

----------


## Jon

> Immediate deaths, requiring bees to change jobs, weakened immune systems


More than anything else that Japanese study shows straightforward poisoning due to the massive dosage applied.
There is no low dose used in this study. In the Harvard study when field realistic dosage was used there was no noticeable effect so they racked up the dosage in the corn syrup by a massive factor so that they could record the subsequent death of the bees and label it ccd.

Studies which demonstrate that insecticide kills insects at high concentrations tell us nothing we don't already know.




> because direct spraying on to foraged crops would expose bees to well over the much-quoted 6 ppb


...which highlights one of the main advantages of applying insecticide via treated seeds as we do not get spray kills as used to be common in yesteryear.

----------


## madasafish

I read all this stuff and if true I should see fellow beekeepers who take bees to OSR  and are near arable land suffering huge winter losses.

They don't.

So it's just more pointless lies from people who are incapable of posting on more than one subject .. but then decry monoculture in agriculture..!!

Take your own medicine first and stop posting rubbish.

----------


## Jon

Spraying neonicotinoid, soil injection, and planter dust from neonicotinoid can be a big problem but we don't have those issues in the UK thankfully.

If you look at the anti pesticide campaigns, the websites and the documentaries, virtually all the information is from the US and now this latest flawed study from Japan.
You would be hard pushed to make a UK based documentary showing major bee problems. Maybe Murray Mc Gregors 3-5 percent winter loss rate over several thousand colonies is a problem.
The same guys (or gals) lose their bees every winter - the ones who fail to do adequate varroa control.

----------


## chris

On the manufacturer's site, it is clearly stated

*Dinotefuran is highly toxic to honeybees*

So, what is there to make a fuss about ? The maker has done the necessary testing. The product is not authorized in France, and I suspect not in the UK though please correct me if I'm wrong.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> On the manufacturer's site, it is clearly stated
> 
> *Dinotefuran is highly toxic to honeybees*
> 
> So, what is there to make a fuss about ? The maker has done the necessary testing. The product is not authorized in France, and I suspect not in the UK though please correct me if I'm wrong.


I am quite taken aback by the responses on this thread to evidence of  commercial products used to stop stinkbugs affecting rice , albeit in Japan, which are found to produce, under controlled conditions, all the symptoms of ccd over a month or three.

One of them, Clothianidin, is used in Europe and the US. the other, maybe not. But Chris seems quite relaxed that Dinotefuran is used in Japan, despite the fact that it is highly toxic to honeybees and is persistent and systemic, because it says that on the tin.

 I thought this was a site centered around the business of looking after bees.

----------


## Neils

Bees? I thought this was the Scottish Badger Association. That might explain why they got so cross when I tried to stuff 60,000 of the buggers into a small wooden box.

But you're right, it's about looking after bees here. If you want anti big business/chemical campaigning with a side nod to bees can I suggest Biobees? Safe Land for Bees might also be interested, but they're mainly concerned about Phone Masts.

It's possible to be concerned about looking after bees without having to jump on every passing bandwagon that decides it wants to attach itself to the perceived 'plight' of honey bees.  There is enough decent research and analysis that gives cause for concern ongoing that attempting to concoct a campaign around 'wont somebody think of the bees!' using studies based on stupid criteria does no-one, especially beekeepers any favours.  

Massive doses of insecticides kills bees, really? That is a surprise.

----------


## Jon

> Bees? I thought this was the Scottish Badger Association.


Badgers are so passé. I am here to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Japanese stink bugs in their hour of need.




> I thought this was a site centered around the business of looking after bees.


In theory it is -  but we seem to attract a fair few non beekeeping single issue campaigners as well.

----------


## Don Ember

"Badgers are so passé." 

 They will be shortly...

----------


## Jon

From the ashes of the cull will rise a super badger tougher than teflon and itching for revenge on the hapless farming community. Has the makings of a Hollywood blockbuster.

----------


## Don Ember

Will need a sprinkling of neonicotinoids to make it really sinister.

----------


## Jon

And some GM worms in the badger diet to make them glow in the dark during the scene where they destroy Gloucester by night.

----------


## Don Ember

In fact, a real brockbuster.

----------


## Jon

> brockbuster


You speaking Japanese now?

----------


## Don Ember

Sorry, I forgot that you were all there with the stink bugs.  Will they be in it too?  (If there are any left...)

----------


## Jon

All God's creatures have a place in the choir.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

To summarise your collective responses: until there is a convincing trial (maybe double-blind, placebo control, long term ,randomised, peer reviewed etc. etc) of neonics available at no higher concentration than 6 ppb. to multiple colonies in a field realistic situation, you won't accept that these new pesticides, which are now used globally on a huge scale, are having any significant negative impact on insect populations in general, and honeybees in paticular.

Who would fund such a trial?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

who would fund such a trial?

  The NHS,  BBC , Richard Branson, Mother Teresa, 
Welcome Foundation, Carnegie Trust,  Barclays Bank?

   Or do we just accept a real-time, world-wide trial, with the results to follow...?

----------


## Neils

The obvious point is that the real-time trial is ongoing and doesn't, currently, support the more outlandish trial results.  Again, there are serious lab studies, under realistic dose conditions, around honey and bumble bees that definitely need more detailed and realistic field studies to see whether what's currently being suggested by those results translate into more realistic studies.

As for funding, if you're going to chuck rhetorical questions up in the air, why not the soil association and NFU. It's farmers who use the stuff after all. The Agro chemical companies can stump up some funds to clear their products too.

You're the farmer, lobby your kin to stop using the stuff rather than try to coerce us to lobby them on your behalf.

----------


## Bumble

> no, not tonight. it's just a kinda, you know, gut feeling...


 I mised this last night and I'll admit that a gut feeling, on the back of what I think is flawed research, isn't going to tempt me to get worried. I'm more likely to listen to an experienced beekeeper whose livelihood depends on the decisions they make.




> You're quite right, the Japanese trial was on clothianidin and dinotefuran ,which they spray on rice paddies against stinkbug. This is rare in UK.
> 
>  They hypothecate that the whole colony is disrupted in many different ways by the neurotoxins depending on dose level and duration. Immediate deaths, requiring bees to change jobs, weakened immune systems, queen stops laying, etc. eventually ccd.


 I'd agree that rice paddies and stinkbugs are, currently, as rare as hens teeth here in UK, but, with the amount of rain we've had this year, you never know what novel crops some enterprising farmers, allotmenteers or back garden veg growers will be planning to plant next year. 

I wonder how many would visit a beekeeping website to learn of the hypothetical pitfalls.




> I am quite taken aback by the responses on this thread to evidence of  commercial products used to stop stinkbugs affecting rice , albeit in Japan, which are found to produce, under controlled conditions, all the symptoms of ccd over a month or three.


I'll bite, because I don't know the answers to a couple of questions.

How realistic it is to, over a continuous period of a month or three, feed bees an insecticide of any strength?

How many treatments of this particular pesticide, of what strength and over what timespan, would normally be applied to an area under rice production?




> ... until there is a convincing trial (maybe double-blind, placebo control, long term ,randomised, peer reviewed etc. etc) of neonics available at no higher concentration than 6 ppb. to multiple colonies in a field realistic situation...


Excellent, sounds a perfect trial. It might be expensive, unless there's an enthusiastic farmer who also has access to bees, who could do it in their spare time?

Or maybe it would be worthwile believing the evidence of those who continue to take their bees to forage on 'contaminated' crops without any ill effects?

----------


## gavin

Oh dear.  I've just read the article.  What appallingly naive drivel!  I don't know how this sort of garbage gets into the scientific literature.  It speaks volumes for the Japanese Journal of Clinical Ecology if nothing else.  Maybe the authors are trying to get themselves tenure at Harvard or something (for those who followed the dismemberment of the Lu paper on Bee-L or elsewhere).

The CCD researchers in the US don't believe that pesticides are a main cause of CCD.  This is bee poisoning, pure and simple.  The researchers have just shown that you can poison bees quickly with massive doses of insecticide, and you can poison them slowly with unrealistically high doses of insecticide.  Their attempt to link this to CCD just shows that they don't understand what that means.

Here is the abstract:

Abstract
  Recently it has become a serious problem that honeybees suddenly vanish in their colony, which is referred to as a colony collapse disorder (CCD). We have made it clear by the field experiments for about four months what effect neonicotinoid pesticides such as dinotefuran and clothianidin have on the occurrence of CCD. Eight colonies consisting of about ten-thousand honeybees in each colony were investigated under the practical beekeeping conditions in our apiary. In this study foods containing dinotefuran of 1 ppm to 10 ppm or clothianidin of 0.4 ppm to 4 ppm were fed into a beehive. Three levels of concentration were 10 (middle-conc.) 100 and (high-conc.) 50 (low-conc.) times lower than that in practical use. The changes of adult bees, brood and the pesticide intake in each colony were directly examined. They suggest that each colony with the pesticide administered collapses to nothing after passing through a state of CCD, the high-concentration pesticides seem to work as an acute toxicity and the low- and middle-concentration ones do as a chronic toxicity. CCD looks mysterious, but it is just one of situations where a colony dwindles to nothing. We have proposed a CCD occurrence mechanism based on our results. The NMR spectral analyses of dinotefuran and clothianidin in aqueous solution give the speculations that both are thermally stable under the heating condition of 50 °C ×24 hours and dinotefuran is radiationally stable under the ultraviolet-irradiation condition of 310 nm×50 W/m but clothianidin is unstable.

----------


## Jon

Yes perhaps the question for JTF should be 'how do you know this study is not simply demonstrating that insecticide is toxic to insects and that the efficiency of the kill is directly related to the dosage applied.'
The same question can be asked of the Harvard study which did not manage to kill any of the colonies until the dosage was changed from field realistic half way through and racked up by a factor of hundreds.
In fact someone, might have been Randy Oliver,  made the comment that is nothing else it showed how resilient bees are to Imidacloprid as it took months to kill off the colonies even at a ridiculously high dose.

Naive is the word if you think these studies add to our knowledge of the interactions between pesticides, bees and other pathogens.

----------


## Jon

Looks like the badger shills have managed to infiltrate the highest levels of government to get the cull postponed. Probably a few posting on this forum masquerading as beekeepers or anti pesticide campaigners. Keep your eyes and ears open peeps. These guys are clever. Smarter than your average black and/or white mammal. Never look one straight in the eye.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Yes perhaps the question for JTF should be 'how do you know this study is not simply demonstrating that insecticide is toxic to insects and that the efficiency of the kill is directly related to the dosage applied.'
> The same question can be asked of the Harvard study which did not manage to kill any of the colonies until the dosage was changed from field realistic half way through and racked up by a factor of hundreds.
> In fact someone, might have been Randy Oliver,  made the comment that is nothing else it showed how resilient bees are to Imidacloprid as it took months to kill off the colonies even at a ridiculously high dose.
> 
> Naive is the word if you think these studies add to our knowledge of the interactions between pesticides, bees and other pathogens.


Clearly the consensus on this forum is that neonicotinoids, when used responsibly, are of little, or no, threat to honeybees or other nice insects. That's all fine, then.

You'd better be right because millions of acres are treated every year. This stuff builds up.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> .
> 
> I'll stand by what I've said before - if UK bees are dying and colonies are collapsing because of what's being put on Oil Seed Rape seeds then why are beekeepers, both hobby and commercial, still taking their colonies to fields of the stuff?
> .


     Could it not be that these beekeepers are, understandably, not aware of the insidious effects of sub-lethal chronic poisoning? 

     Afterall, most of the effects of environmental pollution on us humans are not immediately lethal. They are debilitating over time, leading to functional problems, sometimes fatal, months or often years after initial exposure. 

     Tobacco, asbestos, aluminium, radiation, lead, diesel fumes etc. are such examples of slow-burn effects which have killed millions of us, but took years, sometimes hundreds , to recognise as primary causes.

      My own view is that neonics probably share this highly-contested, difficult-to-prove quality of delayed doom.

----------


## Calum

no it could not be that.
Here in Germany aparists take their bees en mass to the rape (many are paid a 20€ fee for doing so) every year.
For that time period the bees don't have much else to do but fly to the rape, pretty extensive exposure.
They do not report any negative effects on their colonies, these guys are professionals and would whistle blow at the drop of a hat.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> no it could not be that.
> Here in Germany aparists take their bees en mass to the rape (many are paid a 20 fee for doing so) every year.
> For that time period the bees don't have much else to do but fly to the rape, pretty extensive exposure.
> They do not report any negative effects on their colonies, these guys are professionals and would whistle blow at the drop of a hat.


 Callum,are you telling me that German beekeepers are doing just fine,like we all are?

----------


## Calum

yes, we are all doing fine, losses are normal for the situation we and our bees find themselves in.
Varroa is a pain in the arse, and if you do not keep on top of it your colonies will bite the bullet, and take others with them.

The biggest problem that I see is a lack of professional training of beekeepers (its good here in Germany but it could be great), and groups of beekeepers that for different reasons do not implement properly the actions needed to keep the level of varroa low enough for their bees to survive the infestation long term.

I get the feeling that in the UK that the whole game is more amaturish than in Germany, but I get the feeling that UK beekeepers help each other out more than German ones do.

So to answer your question, yes that is what I am telling you (21% in 2011).

----------


## Bumble

> Could it not be that these beekeepers are, understandably, not aware of the insidious effects of sub-lethal chronic poisoning? 
> 
>      Afterall, most of the effects of environmental pollution on us humans are not immediately lethal. They are debilitating over time, leading to functional problems, sometimes fatal, months or often years after initial exposure.


How many months, or years, after pesticide exposure would you calll 'over time' or 'not immeidiate'?

----------


## Jon

....especially given that summer bees live for only 6-8 weeks anyway and are constantly replaced.

Colony numbers have increased year on year in the UK for several years now.

James Cresswell reported in his parliamentary evidence that worldwide, colony numbers have increased by 12% in the past 10 years.

Gosh, is it possible that the 'bees are dying' 'silent spring' 'Armageddon' stories we are being fed in the press are wrong?
Well yes actually, as it as as the gullible and/or lazy journalists who are simply regurgitating press releases from the anti pesticide campaigners and campaign groups who them fill up the comments section below the articles with more scaremongering and nonsense.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> ....especially given that summer bees live for only 6-8 weeks anyway and are constantly replaced.


  The longer term effects in bees would be over generations. Caused by pollution of the comb, the honey and pollen stores, effects on the queen's and drones' prolificacy,general disruption to colony efficiency caused by reduced immunity to diseases and parasites and reduced grooming behaviour, loss of foragers leading to job swaps, generally pooorer foraging due to navigation difficulties. and probably many other effects caused by neurotoxin poisoning.

  It seems probable that many other pollinators and beneficial insects are more seriously affected than honeybees.

----------


## Jon

Loads of work has been done to check comb, honey and hive products for neonicotinoids and their metabolites and generally very little is found. They have been found of course but it is by no means ubiquitous. Other chemicals seem to be present in much higher concentrations.

Check out Mullen et al for example.
Aot of what they find is put there by the beekeeper for varroa control.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Aot of what they find is put there by the beekeeper for varroa control.


   A lot of what we put there may not be so neccessary if the bees could use their noses properly. Maybe it's a case of  more chemicals applied to deal with others we introduced earlier.

----------


## Jon

> Maybe it's a case of  more chemicals applied to deal with others we introduced earlier.


It's chemicals applied to deal with varroa which we introduced earlier and that could have been avoided by proper control of imports.
That is a ban I would support.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Loads of work has been done to check comb, honey and hive products for neonicotinoids and their metabolites and generally very little is found. They have been found of course but it is by no means ubiquitous. .


 As bees' nervous systems share many basic characteristics with ours, I refer to my analogy with humans (eg alcohol and nicotine damaging foetuses)-very low levels of neurotoxins are likely to have severe effects on larvae.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> It's chemicals applied to deal with varroa which we introduced earlier and that could have been avoided by proper control of imports.
> That is a ban I would support.


My suggestionis is, as you must realise, that we maybe have to apply more anti-varroa stuff because bees' ability to groom them out is reduced by neonics. And yes,of course we should not import varroa, especially not to areas such as ours (Orkney), where they haven't yet appeared.

----------


## Jon

> are likely to





> My suggestion is


Evidence?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

:Smile:  :Smile: 


> Evidence?




    On the basis of all the evidence I have read- including Bayer's own descriptions of mode of operation,pesistence etc. over 30 trials, and yes, personal extrapolations and common sense.

    My suggestion is.....
    If a trial shows reduced proboscis control in bees , due to neonics, and bees remove varroa from each other and themselves with their probosces(?), during grooming,I think it's reasonable to suggest that varroa would become more of a problem and require increased levels of chemical treatment.

    are likely to....
    Yes, a low level of neurotoxin is likely to seriously impinge on an insect's nervous system especially at the developmental larval stage.

----------


## prakel

> My suggestion is.....  If a trial shows reduced proboscis control in bees , due to neonics, and bees remove varroa from each other and themselves with their probosces(?), during grooming,I think it's reasonable to suggest that varroa would become more of a problem and require increased levels of chemical treatment.


Are you suggesting that grooming behaviour is currently playing a major part in the control of varroa? Is that what you're saying here? If it is, then I'll personally state that I don't believe that this is actually true.



_EDIT:_ Would genuinely love to be proven wrong on this one though.

----------


## Jon

John. Are you saying that a bee uses its proboscis to groom off varroa?
Gavin has done quite a few presentations on this so maybe he can chip in.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> John. Are you saying that a bee uses its proboscis to groom off varroa?
> Gavin has done quite a few presentations on this so maybe he can chip in.


 Seems mandibular bite + anaesthetic is the favoured mode of attack by bees on something as big as varroa, but too small to sting.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0047432http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0047432

The mandibles are, of couse, next to the proboscis and both are used in grooming. If control of either is compromised, grooming is less effective and parasites less well cleared. They're all just specialised legs.

 Is that right, Gavin?

----------


## Jon

That is the bit which made no sense to me. The proboscis is a delicate organ used for feeding.
As well as the mandible, bees also use their legs to groom off varroa.
Where did you cut and paste that proboscis stuff from?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

It was published over two years ago. Suprised you've not seen it. Chinese.You may need the translated version...

The proboscis is mostly used in grooming for soft or liquid contaminants...

----------


## Jon

I didn't know you were a mandarin speaker!
I may have seen it. Where's the link?

----------


## gavin

> If control of either is compromised, grooming is less effective and parasites less well cleared. They're all just specialised legs.
> 
>  Is that right, Gavin?


Ehmm ... well, mouthparts may be specialised legs but that specialisation probably happened before worms became insects.  AFAIK honeybees use mandibles for biting and legs for grasping.  The proboscis wouldn't be a lot of use unless it wants to try licking a Varroa to death.  Maybe it helps partially hold the pest while it tries to bite it?

Prakel, I do believe that grooming (and biting) has a role in the partial Varroa tolerance you can see in some bee stocks.  

But does exposure to neonics stop or significantly reduce grooming and thereby affect Varroa tolerance?  Nice hypothesis John, but I doubt that it works that way.  In any case there are already season differences in the bees' ability to fight off disease.  EFB is often found after the first major flow - maybe they are so busy on foraging duties that they tend to the broodnest rather less.  That applied pre- and post-neonic use.

Do remember that I've watched bees closely when the OSR comes into flower.  Their behaviour - dancing, recruiting, foraging, range of sites visited and distances flown - all look normal.  With that 5 hr half-life in a bee they will likely largely clear any neonics overnight.

PS  If anyone doesn't normally see bees working OSR and they're passing through Tayside when the weather is not too bad in May, do give me a shout and I'll happily show you bees foraging on the crop.  Even if you are from Orkney.  :Wink:

----------


## prakel

> Prakel, I do believe that grooming (and biting) has a role in the partial Varroa tolerance you can see in some bee stocks.


Yep. Partial. Not sufficiently important (in the event of it being lost) to warrant a major change in the treatment methods already in use by the majority of beekeepers.

EDITED on 01/12/12 for clarity.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> That is the bit which made no sense to me. The proboscis is a delicate organ used for feeding.
> As well as the mandible, bees also use their legs to groom off varroa.
> Where did you cut and paste that proboscis stuff from?


  Looks to me as if I don't have clear evidence, trials etc. for proboscis impairment. I think the information I read was to do with more general motor control, olfactory impairment and navigational problems, and the proboscis connection was in the maze testing and PER (proboscis extension reflex) as an indicatory factor. But then I'm not totally fluent in Mandarin....

----------


## Jon

John there is an unbelievable amount of rubbish written on the internet. You probably picked that up from some other forum where one of the anti pesticide campaigners just made it up to support their argument.
There is an infinite amount of these unreferenced speculative claims on biobees or moraybeedinosaurs to name but two. Quite a bit on beekeepingforum as well from a poster by the username of Karol. Stream of consciousness nonsense.
Everyone should stick to the facts. All this stuff about neonicotinoids making bees more susceptible to varroa is completely unreferenced as well.
And the claims about neonicotinoids causing ccd are also pure speculation.
And the claims of ccd being present in Europe are also speculation notwithstanding Doris' blurry photo of a small cluster of dead bees in a colony somewhere in Austria which could have been either nosema dwindling or the remnants of a varroa collapsed colony. Anyone who keeps bees for any length of time has seen a similar sad little cluster of bees with a queen in it. I have seen the same thing at least half a dozen times myself but I don't run around like a headless chicken shouting CCD.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> John there is an unbelievable amount of rubbish written on the internet. You probably picked that up from some other forum where one of the anti pesticide campaigners just made it up to support their argument.
> There is an infinite amount of these unreferenced speculative claims on biobees or moraybeedinosaurs to name but two. Quite a bit on beekeepingforum as well from a poster by the username of Karol. Stream of consciousness nonsense.
> Everyone should stick to the facts. All this stuff about neonicotinoids making bees more susceptible to varroa is completely unreferenced as well.
> And the claims about neonicotinoids causing ccd are also pure speculation.
> And the claims of ccd being present in Europe are also speculation notwithstanding Doris' blurry photo of a small cluster of dead bees in a colony somewhere in Austria which could have been either nosema dwindling or the remnants of a varroa collapsed colony. Anyone who keeps bees for any length of time has seen a similar sad little cluster of bees with a queen in it. I have seen the same thing at least half a dozen times myself but I don't run around like a headless chicken shouting CCD.


What I really know about is sheep farming. If I followed all the advice of vets, agricompanies,advisors etc. I would be worm drenching my flock every :Cool:  three weeks, vaccinating them against over 30 possible diseases, feeding multiple treatments against deficiencies and parasites, and I would hardly let them get on with their natural lives.
 This has led to a healthy distrust, on my part, of commercially produced evidence of the beneficial effects of every available product. Yes, they are domestic animals in my care and I must treat them well, but it is neither healthy nor reasonable to follow company guidelines or promotional advice.

 To discriminate which treatments, feeds, regimes etc. I will adopt is not an easy thing, and it is part of what makes my job so interesting. Clearly, this applies to all other keepers.

----------


## Jon

I can only speak for myself but I get the impression that most beekeepers in the UK or Ireland use next to no chemical treatments. I treat for varroa once in autumn and once in winter, usually thymol followed by Oxalic acid, two treatments regarded as 'soft'. You can make a thymol treatment yourself if you want and the Oxalic which you mix yourself costs less than 10p per colony. It is not in the hands of Bayer or the multinationals. last autumn and this one I added a little thymol to the autumn syrup feed as this is supposed to help with nosema according to a piece of decent research published by Yucel. That's the lot. Beekeepers in varroa free areas probably use next to no chemical treatments at all.
The chemical cocktails fed into bee colonies are happening elsewhere. The US beekeepers routinely use terramycin which as a sheep farmer you will be familiar with.
The Pelibuey sheep we keep in Mexico need to be treated for parasites at least 2-3 times per year with ivermectin. Liverfluke is rife in our area. A ewe which retains the placenta gets oxitocin. In general I think sheep need more chemical treatment than bees especially with regard to ecto and endoparasites.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I can only speak for myself but I get the impression that most beekeepers in the UK or Ireland use next to no chemical treatments. I treat for varroa once in autumn and once in winter, usually thymol followed by Oxalic acid, two treatments regarded as 'soft'. You can make a thymol treatment yourself if you want and the Oxalic which you mix yourself costs less than 10p per colony. It is not in the hands of Bayer or the multinationals. last autumn and this one I added a little thymol to the autumn syrup feed as this is supposed to help with nosema according to a piece of decent research published by Yucel. That's the lot. Beekeepers in varroa free areas probably use next to no chemical treatments at all.
> The chemical cocktails fed into bee colonies are happening elsewhere. The US beekeepers routinely use terramycin which as a sheep farmer you will be familiar with.
> The Pelibuey sheep we keep in Mexico need to be treated for parasites at least 2-3 times per year with ivermectin. Liverfluke is rife in our area.


   OK. but beekeepers, and everybody else, have to contend with what 'modern' agriculture is doing. Highly treated, monoculture agriculture is increasingly adopted as it can be profitable for the producer, but it has severe reprecussions for our health and the wider environment.

   That so many beekeepers seem to accept this as just something to live with disappoints me. If anybody has grounds to protest it's beekepers.

 As for liverfluke in sheep. Yes, it is a big problem for stock farmers on damper acid land . We don't have fluke on this farm, but when I have bought in store lambs from some other Orkney farmers I have had to treat against fluke and delay selling them fat for twice the conventional withdrawal period.

BTW, you may be interested/ shocked by the way things are going stateside..http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_F...ories=obinsite

----------


## prakel

> That so many beekeepers seem to accept this as just something to live with disappoints me. If anybody has grounds to protest it's beekepers.


Care to elaborate on these 'grounds to protest'?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> The Pelibuey sheep we keep in Mexico need to be treated for parasites at least 2-3 times per year with ivermectin. Liverfluke is rife in our area. A ewe which retains the placenta gets oxitocin. In general I think sheep need more chemical treatment than bees especially with regard to ecto and endoparasites.


Since going organic, with all the changes in mindset that involves, I have significantly reduced the level of all treatments for my sheep, cattle and crops. That has not meant a 'do-nothing' approach, by any means.

It has required a lot of thinking about systems of management and how stuff interacts. I've really enjoyed it. 

 I know this is about bees here, and beekeepers should really be the organic farmers' friends,so I don't wish to ram this down anybody's throat......

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Care to elaborate on these 'grounds to protest'?


Yes, If farmers, who have a significant effect on the environment, adopt practices which may benefit themselves, at least in the short term, but which reduce biodiversity, pollute the environment, produce less nutritious food or any other bad stuff,then I'd have thought that everybody else, and beekeepers in paticular, have grounds to object.

----------


## Jon

I was pleased to see in the Parliamentary select committee evidence that there was a lot of talk about obliging farmers to mitigate potential harm by  planting wildflower strips and generally creating habitat for invertebrates and pollinators. Farmers should be aware that they need to compensate for potential environmental degradation and to be fair to them I think a lot are already clued in to that. This is probably a more realistic way to go as there is a pressing need to feed the world and in spite of what some people say, the vast majority of organic systems do produce less food.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I was pleased to see in the Parliamentary select committee evidence that there was a lot of talk about obliging farmers to mitigate potential harm by  planting wildflower strips and generally creating habitat for invertebrates and pollinators. Farmers should be aware that they need to compensate for potential environmental degradation and to be fair to them I think a lot are already clued in to that. This is probably a more realistic way to go as there is a pressing need to feed the world and in spite of what some people say, the vast majority of organic systems do produce less food.


Last year this organic farm produced more food- lambs, calves, cereals, than in its previous 'conventional' history. This year has been poorer. I blame the weather.

 More to the point, it's one thing to plant wee strips of wildflowers round your fields, but much better not to kill off everything within them.

----------


## prakel

> I'd have thought that everybody else, and beekeepers in paticular, have grounds to object.


Depends on whether they (or their pets) benefit from the produce from these farms surely?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Depends on whether they (or their pets) benefit from the produce from these farms surely?


No....

----------


## prakel

> No....


If they want ME to take them seriously it does. I'm sure that I'm not alone either. 

You've still failed to explain to me why you believe that beekeepers 'in paticular' have grounds to protest. Are you going to differentiate between people with colonies in these areas of monoagriculture which you refer to and those beekeepers in the inner cities who keep popping up in the media to tell us that their bees are fine because they're shielded from those dastardly farmers in the countryside?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> If they want ME to take them seriously it does. I'm sure that I'm not alone either. 
> 
> You've still failed to explain to me why you believe that beekeepers 'in paticular' have grounds to protest. Are you going to differentiate between people with colonies in these areas of monoagriculture which you refer to and those beekeepers in the inner cities who keep popping up in the media to tell us that their bees are fine because they're shielded from those dastardly farmers in the countryside?



    Everybody, and everything, is affected if farmers do bad stuff- clearly. The reason I suggest that beekeepers are especially impinged, and therefore have more reason to protest/ object, is that, uniquely, bees are 'stock' whose territory is not bounded by their owners' boundaries. They have free reign over land which is managed by others- often farmers.

    If the management of that land pollutes it in any way, reduces its biodiversity, makes it nasty,  then beekeepers should be amongst the first to notice and should be the most vocal about it.

  Stands to reason...

----------


## Jon

> Stands to reason...


...yet curiously one of the huge advantages for beekeepers over the past couple of decades has been the spread of oil seed rape as a crop which helps spring build up, and the honey crop which comes off it even though we are told over and over again, often by non beekeepers, that it produces bee Armageddon. In the real world it is beneficial to our bees.

----------


## gavin

> If the management of that land pollutes it in any way, reduces its biodiversity, makes it nasty,  then beekeepers should be amongst the first to notice and should be the most vocal about it.
> 
>   Stands to reason...


And so if observant beekeepers do look hard at their bees - or look hard at the data they've collected from very large numbers of colonies they manage - and say, well, I can't see any effect on my bees, what then?  Will you listen to them?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> And so if observant beekeepers do look hard at their bees - or look hard at the data they've collected from very large numbers of colonies they manage - and say, well, I can't see any effect on my bees, what then?  Will you listen to them?


     I wouldn't object to organically grown OSR, and it's clear that many beekeepers are happy with neonic OSR.

     I do not like thousands of acres of any crop that's always treated with pesticides. And what is the effect of the 92% of neonics that don't get into the plant? Presumably it kills off any and all susceptible soil bugs, and travels into the water table ..

----------


## Dan

> Highly treated, monoculture agriculture is increasingly adopted as it can be profitable for the producer, but it has severe reprecussions for our health and the wider environment.


Where? Ain't no monoculture here, save for the tracts of permanent pasture.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Where? Ain't no monoculture here, save for the tracts of permanent pasture.


Any decent permanent pasture should be a good thing for bees. My own include about five different sown grasses. several white clovers, red clover, chikory. plantain and often several other sown herbs. Over time other local species are probably going to establish themselves. Ideally this balance should provide something for bees and my grazing animals throughout the year.

 This post is of little relevance to the original thread title, but there you go....

----------


## Jon

Apparently the white clover in grass mixes is of little use to bees as it is the 'dutch' clover which is a longer stemmed variety than our native clover.
The grasses themselves are of no use.
Pasture is invariably the worst sort of habitat for bees, right sort of clover excepted.
The only forage they get is from the hedges bounding the fields.
Bees in suburban gardens generally do better than bees in the countryside these days.
I got 90lbs of honey from a colony in my garden this year and a lot of other beekeepers got nothing and had to feed.
the colonies I have elsewhere produced far less, maybe 25-30 lbs per colony.
I got about 200lbs of sycamore honey which came in over just a week when it was in flower at the end of May.

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Apparently the white clover in grass mixes is of little use to bees as it is the 'dutch' clover which is a longer stemmed variety than our native clover.
> The grasses themselves are of no use.
> Pasture is invariably the worst sort of habitat for bees, right sort of clover excepted.
> The only forage they get is from the hedges bounding the fields.
> Bees in suburban gardens generally do better than bees in the countryside these days.
> I got 90lbs of honey from a colony in my garden this year and a lot of other beekeepers got nothing and had to feed.
> the colonies I have elsewhere produced far less, maybe 25-30 lbs per colony.
> I got about 200lbs of sycamore honey which came in over just a week when it was in flower at the end of May.


You're right, I think, about modern clover varieties being of no use to honeybees. We noticed a few years ago that bees on my farm clustered around small patches of wild white clover whilst there were acres of modern (hybrid ?) clover available. Since then I have chosen to sow more short- flowered strains. 

As for pasture being crap for bees- depends what's in it. Much of our established pasture contains' eggs and bacon'( birds' foot trefoil), shepherds purse,several vetches etc.

I don't find that doing stuff that I do for bees, bumbles or birds is a problem for my core farming. Herbs and variety in the sward has to be of general health benefit to my stock.

----------


## Jon

I have seen mine working birds foot trefoil. never noticed them on vetches but they likely get a bit from it.
The major sources here in approximate chronological order are  willow, dandelion, oil seed rape, sycamore, bramble, willowherb, clover, balsam and ivy. Beekeepers talk a lot about stuff like hawthorn and Lime trees but I never get anything significant from them.

----------


## greengumbo

> I have seen mine working birds foot trefoil. never noticed them on vetches but they likely get a bit from it.
> The major sources here in approximate chronological order are  willow, dandelion, oil seed rape, sycamore, bramble, willowherb, clover, balsam and ivy. Beekeepers talk a lot about stuff like hawthorn and Lime trees but I never get anything significant from them.


The tawny coloured bumblebees love the purple vetch I have all over the hedgerows round here but I didnt see a single bee on it all summer. Mind you given this summer I didnt see many bees on anything !

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> ...yet curiously one of the huge advantages for beekeepers over the past couple of decades has been the spread of oil seed rape as a crop which helps spring build up, and the honey crop which comes off it even though we are told over and over again, often by non beekeepers, that it produces bee Armageddon. In the real world it is beneficial to our bees.


   Jon, some time ago I argued that even though many beekeepers, even experienced ones, seemed happy for their bees to forage neonics-treated oil seed rape, maybe they were, understandably, unaware of the longer term damage their bees might be incurring.

   This thread of discussion has been most active recently on the Beekeeping Forum. 

   Still, I thought I'd revert to this SBA thread to introduce this recent piece of research

   I suggested, surmised, that as pregnant women ingesting neurotoxins harm their foetuses, maybe, probably, bee larvae might well be similarly compromised. You asked me for evidence.

  Please tell me what you think of this http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0049472

  I'll give you an hour to shoot it down in flames...

  Or maybe Gavin, as you're currently online.

----------


## gavin

Nice of you to give us a full hour.  What is this - some kind of TV game show?

The paper notes long term effects from feeding larvae:

- 0.4ng
- 0.04ng

but not from feeding them:

- 0.004ng
- 0.0004ng

So, is that relevant?  What is the likely exposure from Ulster OSR fields?  Who knows!  One clue might be the concentration the larvae were fed.

100 ug/l
10 ug/l
1.0 ug/l
0.1 ug/l (ie ppb)

But do we know what the levels may be in the secretions adult bees feed to larvae?  I would guess that they are low, but the facts are missing.

So - insecticides fed to larvae damage them.  Is that the conclusion?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> Nice of you to give us a full hour.  What is this - some kind of TV game show?
> 
> The paper notes long term effects from feeding larvae:
> 
> - 0.4ng
> - 0.04ng
> 
> but not from feeding them:
> 
> ...


  Yes it is.

     0.4 ng is, surely a very, very small amount.

    All credit to them that they tested even smaller levels which showed no response.

    In some ways the most interesting thing is that you, Gavin, instead of being interested in a possible ,newly demonstrated threat to bee health, immediately revert to the defence mode.

----------


## gavin

I find it interesting that you jump straight away to accusations that I am in defence mode.

0.4ng is indeed a very, very small amount.  But the likely exposure to bees is a very, very, very small amount, isn't it?  And what is the likely exposure to bee larvae? 

Insecticides kill and damage bees.  There, I said it.  Happy now?

----------


## Johnthefarmer

> I find it interesting that you jump straight away to accusations that I am in defence mode.
> 
> 0.4ng is indeed a very, very small amount.  But the likely exposure to bees is a very, very, very small amount, isn't it?  And what is the likely exposure to bee larvae? 
> 
> Insecticides kill and damage bees.  There, I said it.  Happy now?


  This trial showed that 0.4ng/larva produced reduced olfactory function.

   What evidence would convince you that neonics are bad for bees?

     I am a farmer, and can see that a product which comes ready-prepared to defend my seedlings against anything which might stop them establishing might seem a good thing.

      But when it turns out that it kills bumbles, affects honeybees over generations, 90% never enters my plants but leaches and persists in the soil and groundwater, even a farmer should question his decision- nevermind a beekeeper.

 I agree that the difference between a very,very small amount and a very,very,very small amount is just possibly worth further investigation.

  But, still, what do you need?

----------


## Jon

Working out how pesticides damage bees is based on field studies which look at field realistic doses of the toxins involved.
This study tipped way over field realistic doses of pesticide into cells containing larvae and noted some damage and developmental aberrations.
Anyone really surprised?
This is a totally unnatural situation and like several previous studies only manages to demonstrate that insecticide is toxic to insects and insect larvae especially at high dosage.
Poor design. Poor study.

The best bit was where it mentioned queens spawning. Wish I had one of those in my pond.

----------


## greengumbo

> Working out how pesticides damage bees is based on field studies which look at field realistic doses of the toxins involved.
> This study tipped way over field realistic doses of pesticide into cells containing larvae and noted some damage and developmental aberrations.
> Anyone really surprised?
> This is a totally unnatural situation and like several previous studies only manages to demonstrate that insecticide is toxic to insects and insect larvae especially at high dosage.
> Poor design. Poor study.
> 
> The best bit was where it mentioned queens spawning. Wish I had one of those in my pond.


PLOSone is a nice journal so I'm surprised at some of the assumptions made in this paper and some of the statements in the introduction about the gaucho incident....it contains many maybes and could haves. 

This was of interest: "The relatively high residue of imidacloprid was observed in the honeycomb and propolis of depopulated beehives [42], indicating that the insecticide could be accumulated in these materials, resulting in the larvae of the colonies being continuously exposed to the contamination before the hives were depopulated." 
It could well be that it accumulates but although I am only a first season beekeeper I dont recall seeing many of the larvae in my hive eating the wax. In fact this lipophilic property was one of the big selling points of apistan (tau-fluvalinate) in that it would keep out of the honey and stay in wax away from harm. Pesticide from farmers = bad but pesticide from beekeepers = good ??? Seems to be flawed reasoning.

I have to say that the difference between 0.04ng and 0.004ng is actually pretty big in terms of insecticide exposure to larvae, especially when ingested. Someone with more knowledge than might be able to answer what is the biochemical mode of action of the hypopharangeal glands of bees ? If foragers feed on nectar then feed this to the developing brood or add it to brood cells could insecticide in the nectar be broken down in the glands and reduce exposure even further ? I would think it could be relatively simple to test the level of pesticide in the brood cell food directly and get an idea what the "field" level dose of pesticide the larvae are actually getting. From there you could then carry out the experiments put forth in this paper with a bit more confidence in the interpretation of results ?

I've no idea if this particular pesticide has subtle sub-lethal effects on bee larvae and bee behaviour but the lack of significant bee mortality across the UK in areas where bees are exposed, and have been for some time, along with the literature _so far_ (and thats a caveat!) suggest not. In the case of precautionary principle I think that that ship, rightly or wrongly, sailed a long time ago and I would be extremely worried about going back to some of the pesticides that used to be commonplace. In an ideal world pesticides would not be required at all but an ideal world does not have 8 billion mouths to feed. 

I am willing to be convinced if plausible and significant evidence arises but then thats just good science. 

By the way - I hear all the field level dose stuff being banded about - surely thats not hard to find out and then replicate in both acute and accumulative toxicity studies ? This must have been carried out hundereds of times before on a multitude of pesticides across many countries ?

----------


## greengumbo

ps: Does Australia use OSR with seed coatings ? How do their bees get on in the absence of Varroa but the presence of seed coating pesticides ? Anyone using this big laboratory to test it ?

----------


## Jon

> ps: Does Australia use OSR with seed coatings ?


Yes




> How do their bees get on in the absence of Varroa but the presence of seed coating pesticides ? Anyone using this big laboratory to test it ?


The Americans import most of their package bees from Australia to make up losses.

EDIT. I got a PM to say the Yanks stopped importing from the US at the start of 2011 due to the risk of novel pathogens originating in asia

----------

