# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  New research on colony collapse disorder

## lindsay s

Interesting article and it's not sensationalist Jon.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6...de-bee-die-off

Here's the full article
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0029639

----------


## Rosie

I read that the other day when it was mentioned on BEE-L.  To me it's further evidence that we should not be importing any stocks of whatever race.  There are still pathogens out there that we don't know about so screening for small hive beetle and limiting imports to countries that control their AFB isn't enough.  I doubt if the NBU screen for imported queen attendants for Phorid flies.

Rosie

----------


## Jimbo

I think this Phorid fly like sunnier climes so we should be OK, unless it adapts
What does a zombie bee look like?

----------


## Jon

> I To me it's further evidence that we should not be importing any stocks of whatever race.  There are still pathogens out there that we don't know about so screening for small hive beetle and limiting imports to countries that control their AFB isn't enough.  I doubt if the NBU screen for imported queen attendants for Phorid flies.


Those were my thoughts as well, plus the fact that if this turns out to be true the neonicotinoid campaigners will be devastated.
All that campaigning to get research funds diverted to the pesticide hobby-horse.

The other thing I noticed was the distribution map and the fly infestation was concentrated in California which has big implications given that most of the colonies in the US end up in California at the start of the year for the almond pollination.

----------


## Ruary

Copied from Bee_L list:
Quote
I thought that I would share this message with you.



Message from Joe Derisi on Media craziness: phorids and bees



  It looks like the media has really run with the whole zombie-bee phorid thing. Charles and I are authors on that paper, but I want you to know that we do not agree with the statements being made in the press and by others, claiming that phorids are even remotely responsible for colony collapse.

You may hear from your stakeholders that are listening to the popular press today. The media is way over-hyping this story.

J
END QUOTE
Ruary

----------


## gavin

Thanks Ruary.  Well, OK, the media may well be over-hyping this.  However the paper did allude to CCD and readers could be forgiven for assuming that a link was implied.

----------


## Rosie

Despite all the false alarms and media hype (I doubt if anyone takes much notice of the press these days with regard to CCD) the research has highlighted at least 2 pathogens that I for one knew nothing about**:  the fluorescent virus and the phorid flies.  I must admit though that, at one stage,  I was starting to think there was something to the fluorescent virus theory.  The mobile phones sounded like a joke from the start and it still pops up from time to time.

In recent years we have admitted varroa and nosema ceranae into the country and still to come are tropilaelaps, small hive beetle, exotic strains of the foulbroods, fluorescent virus and phorid flies.  The worrying thing is that there are obviously loads more that are yet to be discovered and yet we are still importing bees when we already have every race and strain available here.  

Rosie

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Interesting article and it's not sensationalist Jon.
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6...de-bee-die-off
> 
> Here's the full article
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0029639


Thanks for posting this, Lindsay, as it is actually quite an interesting story.

There are certain indications that this parasitic fly might be connected to a very similar one that has been released in recent years in North America to control fire ants biologically. 
I think the verdict on its identification is still out, but it might just be a case of the parasite using bees as host instead of ants.


To link it in any way to CCD is a very simplistic media hype. 
Don't you think that hordes of scientist looking for the causes of CCD would have noticed a bug that can be seen without any magnification and which drastically changes the bees' behaviour?





> Scientists say the fly deposits its eggs into the bee's abdomen, causing  the infected bee to exhibit zombie-like behaviour by walking around in  circles with no apparent sense of direction. The bee leaves the hive at  night and dies shortly thereafter.


Anybody with some basic knowledge of science should have noticed this apparent discrepancy and called their bluff.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Now why would the media run with such a story despite it having no legs at all and even the authors declaring that they think there's no link to CCD?


Well, finding a decapitating parasite that turns its victims into zombies is quite a good story on its own.

Linking it with CCD makes it even more sensational and very attractive to the pesticide corporations, as it diverts attention away from their own problems. And could you blame them if they'd sponsor a few extra adverts in return?

 :Cool:

----------


## Jon

> And could you blame them if they'd sponsor a few extra adverts in return?


Wow. Another conspiracy theory.
The press coverage of beekeeping issues is dire in this country whether it is zombie flies, cell phone masts or pesticides.
The Guardian and the Independent are particularly bad.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Wow. Another conspiracy theory.


Jon, I really think you shouldn't use that term so much, remember what I explained in strategy number 2.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is very often used to sideline a topic that would be very embarrassing to officials if it was properly investigated.

Anyway, it would be very naive to think what I hinted at doesn't go on on a daily basis in all sorts of areas of life, the pesticide corprorations are no saints either.

----------


## Jon

Hi Doris. If you make an allegation like that you should provide evidence.
I always point out conspiracy theories by yourself or anyone else. They are invariably complete nonsense.
I had many a run in with a well known internet poster who preaches good husbandry and non treatment. He could fit 5 different conspiracies into a single post in an effortless style.
It is nothing to do with derailing discussion. It is about raising the bar with regard to the quality of the discussion.
If unsubstantiated gossip or conspiracy is acceptable there is no point in having the debate. It is the equivalent of pub talk.
The debate has to be based on evidence.
You can get all the conspiracy you want on Biobees.com.
In the shills thread you started there, someone suggested that Bayer was funding the Scottish bee forum and Uncle Phil Chandler inferred that he was banned from this forum. Counting your risible shills allegation, that is 3 separate conspiracy theories on a thread of only 5 posts.
That's what I call value for money, a 60% hit rate per thread.
If you want relentless conspiracy theory, biobees in out in front by a country mile.
I believe this thread was about phorid flies and press coverage of the aforementioned.

----------


## Rosie

To get back to phorid flies I had a single colony that emerged from winter with all dead bees in it.  My only other loss was a Marie Celeste so I don't know what hapened to that one.

The dead bee one had loads of bees on the floor, some heads down in cells and others in a cluster on a frame. The clustered bees had decomposed into a sort of porridge.  I could not explain their death so I took some samples from the floor ones to test for nosema.  Within a few seconds I noticed maggots crawling out of the corpses. I guessed the ones that had turned to porridge had already been consumed by maggots.  I have never encountered maggots in dead bees before and immediately thought about the phorid fly article which went round all the message boards some months ago after first appearing on Bee-L.

After thinking about it for I while I concluded that as the bees had been dead for at least 2 weeks (I had realised they were dead and had closed up the hive until I had time to investigate)  the maggot eggs had probably been laid after the bees had died.  Hence I don't think it was phorid flies which, to my knowledge, are unknown in Britain in any case.

Has anyone else had maggot-infested bees?

Rosie

----------


## Jon

I have seen the same Steve. A few years ago I had a colony with nosema which was sitting above a tyre I was using as a stand. A lot of the bees ended up below the hive inside the tyre and this was a complete porridge of bees and maggots.
I think those phorid flies need a warmer climate than ours so we are probably safe enough.
The big worry is importing bees with unknown viruses or more virulent strains of pathogens we already have.
Even with varroa, moving bees from one area to another could move pyrethroid resistant mites to a new area.
We now have cases of mite resistance in NI.
Importing bees is a bad idea with regard to disease risk.
We should have been able to keep Ireland varroa free but someone brought in varroa in 1998

----------


## gavin

Now then guys, I've been called a shill, Graham White also tells me that I'm in the pay of Bayer, a smallish Glaswegian once swore at me and said the same thing but with Monsanto this time, I've even resisted being rude to a fellow criticising the humour on here ..... and I can shrug all that off.  But you'd better be really careful if you are going to use the word _porridge_ inappropriately!

 :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Stromnessbees

That's right Gavin, Rosie has put me right off it!

But it's sad that you and Jon swallowed the fly story wholeheartedly without all the critical analysis that you put against every pesticide study ever conducted. This would have been your opportunity to shout 'bad science' or rather 'bad reporting'.

I'm hoping we'll see your critical thinking applied more widely in future.

----------


## Jon

Porridge is the work of the devil. An educated man eats potatoes for breakfast.
There was an old woman who swallowed a fly.
I don't know why she swallowed that fly.
I haven't swallowed any myself.
The lesson from the Phorid fly story is that the press will sensationalize any story to do with bees.
They are discussing a Forbes article on bee decline on Bee-L at the moment, complete rubbish, and Forbes is not considered to be a tabloid.




> a smallish Glaswegian once swore at me


Hope it wasn't Trog, but I suspect I know who you are talking about!

----------


## Neils

The Media is an appalling source for information at the moment. What isn't down right sensationalist is often just plain wrong or confused from the start. Country File's sections the other day, linked here in another thread, I think are a case in point and generally they seem to be pretty good. They talk about bees, at times, seemingly as one homogeneous "lump". Are they referring to Bumbles, solitary bees, honey bees, all of them? At times they seem to be referring to one while showing pictures of another. 

As for the media generally being an impartial observer of "the science" is MMR really that long ago?

To mention the N word again, it's interesting how many articles continually refer to them as "new"

----------


## Jimbo

It wisnae me that swore at him! I'm no smallish.
Jon, what's wrong with porridge far more healthy than a fried tattie scone.
I think we should be OK from the Phorid fly at the moment, unless it likes the cold wet coast of Scotland

----------


## Jon

I was thinking of a wee man worried about inbreeding and sugar bags!

You can't beat a tasty fried slice of potato.
I'd better be careful. You could get banned from a Scottish forum for pointing out the devilish nature of porridge.
Don't want to end up in the sin bin with Doris!

----------


## Rosie

Gavin

I'm a Kellogs shill.  Pay me more than them and I'll describe maggot slime as soggy, grey cornflakes.

Rosie (who likes chicken embryos for breakfast)

----------


## Jon

LOL. Doris has taught a new word to the entire beekeeping community of the UK and Ireland.
Not bad when English is not even your first language.

Steve, that will be hard to beat as the best one liner of the day!

----------


## Rosie

> The Media is an appalling source for information at the moment.


There is nothing new about the media having poor standards.  I was in the nuclear industry in the 70s and the coal industry in the 80s and now take an interest in bees.  Whenever one sees articles in the press on a subject you know something about one sees that poor research, idle investigators and vested interests are rife in the media and always have been.  The tragedy is that the media controls public opinion and hence Government policies.

Rosie

----------


## Stromnessbees

> The tragedy is that the media controls public opinion and hence Government policies.


Quite right, the only question left is: Who controls the media?

Don't they say in Scotland: He who pays the piper calls the tune. ?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> LOL. Doris has taught a new word to the entire beekeeping community of the UK and Ireland.
> Not bad when English is not even your first language.


Thanks, Jon.

Actually it would have been better if I had known the full implications of the word myself before I posted it.  :Embarrassment: 


Anyway, my anti-shill strategies are very useful knowledge for anybody who reads internet fora or comments in newspapers.

Keeping those three strategies in mind and a few supplementary ones likegetting your statement in quickly, 
the use of very emotive language and pictures,
 playing good cop - bad cop or 
lowering the tone of a forum by using racism or sexual terms is essential when you want to find out what's really going on.


You can pick any internet forum you like, look for the 'hot' threads and see these strategies applied, and you'll know which topics the spin doctors are spinning you a yarn on. 

Have fun!


The 3 main strategies are listed here:
http://www.sbai.org.uk/sbai_forum/sh...ull=1#post9661

----------


## Jon

Doris there has been some speculation that there are paid stooges on share dealing forums as markets are driven by positive or negative perceptions - a concept know as 'ramping' rather than shilling. An unscrupulous bunch of day traders could probably drive a share price up or down by a penny or two and make some gain from trading it.
However.......................the idea that there are paid stooges on the various bee forums is one of the most preposterous things I have ever heard in my entire life. And if you had friends like mine you would have heard a lot of ridiculous stuff over the years. Getting your statement in quickly is self evident as a discussion moves quickly and you need to keep up. Good cop bad cop I have never noticed on a bee forum and racism and/or and sexism should not be tolerated in my opinion. I remember a poster making racist comments about 'thick set Irish' on beekeeping forum some time ago and I could not believe that the comment was allowed to stand. One of the most prominent anti pesticide people on the old bbka forum got banned for calling an American poster who disagreed with him 'a Colonial'. Racism is ugly wherever it rears its head.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Doris there has been some speculation that there are paid stooges on share dealing forums as markets are driven by positive or negative perceptions - a concept know as 'ramping' rather than shilling. An unscrupulous bunch of day traders could probably drive a share price up or down by a penny or two and make some gain from trading it.
> However.......................*the idea that there are paid stooges on the various bee forums is one of the most preposterous things I have every heard in my entire life.* And if you had friends like mine you would have heard a lot of ridiculous stuff over the years. Getting your statement in quickly is self evident as a discussion moves quickly and you need to keep up. Good cop bad cop I have never noticed on a bee forum and racism and/or and sexism should not be tolerated in my opinion. I remember a poster making racist comments about 'thick set Irish' on beekeeping forum some time ago and I could not believe that the comment was allowed to stand. One of the most prominent anti pesticide people on the old bbka forum got banned for calling an American poster who disagreed with him 'a Colonial'. Racism is ugly wherever it rears its head.


It's not that preposterous if you consider that we beekeepers can actually be a very powerful group:

Bees are very important and the public wants them protected. If beekeepers get together and protest they can get whole categories of pesticides banned like it happened in France and in Germany.

It's only good business sense of the corporations to invest money where opinions are being made - in magazines, on fora and on conferences - to influence the opinion of the beekeepers directly and to drive any suspicion away from their products.

If they can hire people in high positions or functions it's even better for them, all they need to do is promise them support for their respective interests in return.

----------


## gavin

A have to say here that a smallish Glaswegian tried to get the SBA membership to vote to put measures into place to keep a lookout for such stooges standing for office.  I'm pleased to report that the vote was overwhelmingly for commonsense.

----------


## Jon

Doris you need to get real. That is pure fantasy. The beekeeping community is quite cliquey. Beekeepers know each other off the forums as well. I sat beside you for two days at the bibba conference in Tipperary for gawd sakes and listened in amazement as Andrew Abrahams and yourself argued about which one of you lived on the bleakest island. The most relentless single issue poster I can think of is borderbeeman and I don't think he is being funded by anyone. Were that the case they would be looking their money back! There are a couple of others who are single issue guys but I think they are just obsessives rather than paid stooges for some cause or other. You get the same thing with some of the small cell devotees or the non-treatment beekeepers. Black bee men are exempt from that kind of behaviour of course!

What is your ethical stance on the drafting of a press release which you know to be inaccurate and/or misleading which ends up getting coverage in the UK press by our 'award winning' journalist friends. Now that is dodgy in my opinion.
I take people at face value and I do not consider myself to be naive.
I think latching on to every conspiracy theory doing the rounds is naive and a symptom of lazy thinking.
Seriously Doris, the world is not the cess pool of intrigue that you imagine. Not the bee part of it anyway.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> A have to say here that a smallish Glaswegian tried to get the SBA membership to vote to put measures into place to keep a lookout for such stooges standing for office.  I'm pleased to report that the vote was overwhelmingly for commonsense.


Maybe you should consider changing your mind on that after what I have explained here. 

The danger of paid lobbyists infiltrating beekeeping organisations is very real and the common sense action is to prevent against it.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Doris you need to get real. That is pure fantasy.
>  ...
> Seriously Doris, the world is not the cess pool of intrigue that you imagine. Not the bee part of it anyway.


I'm not alone with my opinion:

The president of the Association of Commercial Beekeepers of Germany, Walter Haefeker, has written an article with the title 'Betrayed and Sold Off' about the great bee monitoring study, which was supposed to clear up the mystery about the bee die-offs.

http://www.imkerdemo.de/hintergrundi...nenmonitoring/



> *Walter Haefeker, EPBA*
> 
> *Verraten und verkauft - das deutsche Bienenmonitoring!*
> 
> 
> *Von Walter Haefeker, Präsident der Vereinigung der Europäischen Berufsimker*


I recommend that you google translate it and read it, to get the picture of what's been going on.


I'll give you time to read this and will try to get back to the discussion later.

----------


## Jon

Birds of a feather flock together and so do conspiracy theorists.
There are a lot of them about but the majority grow out of it.
I am well aware that multinationals have a lobbying budget. 
The US system in particular lends itself to special interest groups and corporations.
But I really do not think we have paid 'shills' on the bee forums.
As they say in Belfast, - catch yourself on.

What would be the collective noun for a conference of conspiracy theorists.

A school of whales
A paranoia of conspiracy theorists.

----------


## Trog

> and listened in amazement as Andrew Abrahams and yourself argued about which one of you lived on the bleakest island.


For bleakest island with a beekeeper on it, Tiree might get my vote.  Without?  Anything west of the Long Isle!

----------


## gavin

> You can pick any internet forum you like, look for the 'hot' threads and see these strategies applied, and you'll know which topics the spin doctors are spinning you a yarn on. 
> 
> Have fun!


Any internet forum?  Do you *still* believe that _this one_ has people contributing who are anything other than individual beekeepers here to talk beekeeping?

----------


## Jon

> For bleakest island with a beekeeper on it, Tiree might get my vote. Without? Anything west of the Long Isle!


Anyone got a colony on Rockall?
All you need is a bee race which can forage on guano.
No chemical fertilizer needed there.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Just while I remember it: there's another technique that is used along with the other ones:

Whenever a genuine poster uncovers something very inconvenient and threatening to the team, they will call in people from the spare benches to create a flurry of activity on the forum, in order to burry the offending post and to get it off top position. 
These spare forces are usually less well trained and keep to simpler lines of arguing or to alltogether unrelated topics.

----------


## gavin

LOL!  You really are a hoot Doris.

Edit:

3. Informal One that is hilariously funny

_Not:_ 

_interj._ Scots
Used to express annoyance or objection.

PPS One 'r' in bury, just in case you are going to copy your hypothesis elsewhere.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Any internet forum?  Do you *still* believe that _this one_ has people contributing who are anything other than individual beekeepers here to talk beekeeping?


No, Gavin, I just want to raise awareness and I want you to run the forum with all this in mind, so that we can have meaningfull discussions here.

----------


## gavin

Well, that's progress I suppose.

----------


## Jon

This conspiracy theory stuff is not meaningful, it is abject nonsense which has the redeeming feature of inducing great hilarity.
I don't know how you get through the day with a head full of this stuff.
Orkney must be crawling with guys who look like extras from Men in Black.
Look out! They are coming for you.

----------


## Stromnessbees

I would actually like to get back to the topic of this thread again, as we seem to have hijacked it from Lindsay.

Ever since I have learned about parasitic flies and wasps I have been fascinated by the fact how they invade another organism and completely take it over, even control its movements. And then one day they emerge and leave only an empty shell behind.

 :EEK!:

----------


## Neils

Funny, you can apply that whole logic to the majority of postings around by the pro-ban group too.

(posting habits, not parasitic control of other organisms)

----------


## Jon

> Ever since I have learned about parasitic flies and wasps I have been fascinated by the fact how they invade another organism and completely take it over, even control its movements. And then one day they emerge and leave only an empty shell behind.


When the Phorid fly story first broke I remember suggesting that this had happened to borderbeeman.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> This conspiracy theory stuff is not meaningful, it is abject nonsense which has the redeeming feature of inducing great hilarity.
> I don't know how you get through the day with a head full of this stuff.
> Orkney must be crawling with guys who look like extras from Men in Black.
> Look out! They are coming for you.


You are not threatening me, or are you?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Jon

No Doris, I am being ironic! You need to get your head around that concept on this forum.
Have you never been to Pantomime?
Look out, he's behind you.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> No Doris, I am being ironic! You need to get your head around that concept on this forum.
> Have you never been to Pantomime?
> Look out, he's behind you.


Just checked, no, there's nobody behind me. 

I have to go and feed my hungry children. 
Have you read that German piece yet?

----------


## Jon

Yes I read it. A hotch potch of various bits of unsubstantiated conspiracy most of which I had heard before.
Google translate is not very good German to English it seems but I got the gist.
Don't be filling the children's heads with nonsense now! Don't want them having nightmares about Bayer agents.
I suggest you forget about feeding them porridge for a while as well.

----------


## chris

> how they invade another organism and completely take it over, even control its movements. And then one day they emerge and leave only an empty *shell* behind.


Don't you mean shill? 
Doris, you obviously care a great deal, but you don't have the monopoly on caring. The way you are arguing, which is to rubbish people rather than their reasoning is more likely to harm your cause than to promote it. :Frown:

----------


## EmsE

> Maybe you should consider changing your mind on that after what I have explained here. 
> 
> The danger of paid lobbyists infiltrating beekeeping organisations is very real and the common sense action is to prevent against it.


Hi Doris,
As a registered charity, the people on the executive are already covered by the legislation as shown on the OSCAR site. By voting to accept the proposal would have weakened this as the SBA members would be specifying just 1 issue that could be classed as a conflict of interest. There are many other things that could be classed as a conflict of interest and these may well change as the years go on.

----------


## Stromnessbees

just noticed that this has been a very international debate, countries involved were: Scotland (of course), England, France , Germany, Austria, USA (- the parasite)

 I think we can conclude this round now with .........        Doris - one        Gavin & co - nil         (that's because I spotted the fake hype over the CCD connection.)
and of course Ruary needs to be given credit for finding the authors' statement and Lindsay for finding the topic.


Next we can debate what Randy Oliver had to say about the Harvard study, but first I need to find some time for analysing it.
Anybody who wants to join in is very welcome!

At the monent I don't even know where it is, that Bee-L site is some labyrinth!


EmsE, I don't really know much about the background of this proposal. I was just responding to Gavin's attitude to it.

----------


## Jon

> (that's because I spotted the fake hype over the CCD connection.)


Everyone spotted the hype from day one. Surely that is pretty obvious.

Doris, I posted you a link to the Randy Oliver review in the other thread.
Bee-L is hard to navigate.

----------


## lindsay s

> I would actually like to get back to the topic of this thread again, as we seem to have hijacked it from Lindsay.


Doris this thread has been lying dormant for the last few months just like Ive been doing. You could have easily commented on it a while ago. Anybody with more brains than a bee can see its you who has hijacked this thread and quickly turned it into a debate about conspiracy theories and pesticides. I think you should spend less time on the internet and more time helping out the beginners that you encouraged to take up beekeeping. Yesterday I spent time sorting out a hive that has combs held together with fishing line and soaking wet hessian on top. Does that ring any bells Doris?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Doris this thread has been lying dormant for the last few months just like I’ve been doing. You could have easily commented on it a while ago. Anybody with more brains than a bee can see it’s you who has hijacked this thread and quickly turned it into a debate about conspiracy theories and pesticides. I think you should spend less time on the internet and more time helping out the beginners that you encouraged to take up beekeeping. Yesterday I spent time sorting out a hive that has combs held together with fishing line and soaking wet hessian on top. Does that ring any bells Doris?


Lindsay, I think you are unnecessarily hard on me. I had not been on this forum for about a year, and you personally asked me to come back to it,  I had not read your contribution before yesterday. By choosing this particular thread title you reinforced the link to CCD and I felt it was necessary to clear up the confusion und show up the background to it.


With regards to my work for the Orkney Beekeepers' Association: 
I don't really encourage anybody to take up beekeeping but I decided to help those who are determined to do it and to provide them with bees, as previously there was hardly a chance to get any in Orkney.

My system of using fishing line instead of wire and hessian under the crownboard works very well for me and for others who use it correctly. In the end, everybody is free to choose a way of beekeeping that suits him/her.

----------


## lindsay s

Since Doris came on the scene lifes become a bit more complicated in the Orkney beekeeping world. Doris was instrumental in restarting the Orkney Beekeepers Association and has been the major driving force behind the increase in local honeybee colonies in Orkney.

Doris while its very tempting to use this thread to debate our different styles of beekeeping and the way forward for Orkneys beekeepers Im going to save any punch-ups for our association meetings.

Yes I encouraged you to come back on this forum but I forgot the old saying you reap what you sow. I have also encouraged you to apologise for last weeks behaviour. 

Doris with your scientific back ground you would win a debate against me any day but I must be doing something right to have kept bees alive for the last 33 years.

Although pesticides are used in Orkney its not the biggest problem our bees face. So stop worrying about the rest of the world and conspiracy theories and lets concentrate on beekeeping nearer to home.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Gavin, this thread used to be in the section Bee health.  Within the last few days it has been moved down to the bottom of the forum into ... More ... Beekeeping and the environment.  Can you please explain the reason for the move and if you cannot explain it, can you please move it back where it belongs?

----------


## gavin

Sorry Doris, I'm not going to explain because ..... it hasn't been moved  :Stick Out Tongue: 

As far as I remember Lindsay started the thread right here.  Pretty sure that my moderator colleagues haven't moved it either.  Yes, I can see that a discussion on the phorid fly might have been better in the Bee Health area, but CCD is often the emotive issue that might be best here.

So let's avoid confusion and just leave it here.

Nice to see you posting again.

Gavin

----------


## Neils

Not guilty m'lud, the only thread that's been moved in the last week or so is splitting out the discussion on Foul Brood from the Beekeeping Myths thread.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Ok I'm sorry for having thought it had been moved, I just could not find it anymore, previously I always found it on 'new posts'.

The moderatotors on this forum should really be more proactive in spotting and moving misplaced threads, all good indicators of a properly run forum.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Since Doris came on the scene life’s become a bit more complicated in the Orkney beekeeping world. Doris was instrumental in restarting the Orkney Beekeepers Association and has been the major driving force behind the increase in local honeybee colonies in Orkney.
> 
> Doris while it’s very tempting to use this thread to debate our different styles of beekeeping and the way forward for Orkneys beekeepers I’m going to save any punch-ups for our association meetings.
> 
> Yes I encouraged you to come back on this forum but I forgot the old saying “you reap what you sow”. I have also encouraged you to apologise for last week’s behaviour. 
> 
> Doris with your scientific back ground you would win a debate against me any day but I must be doing something right to have kept bees alive for the last 33 years.
> 
> Although pesticides are used in Orkney it’s not the biggest problem our bees face. So stop worrying about the rest of the world and conspiracy theories and lets concentrate on beekeeping nearer to home.


As this thread is in _Beekeeping and the environment_ I will clarify one issue:

One of the reasons why Orkney bees do well on minimal care is that our farmers mostly reuse their own grain for sowing their crops and don't buy in neonicotinoid coated seeds which contaminate soil and produce. 

This is good argricultural practice, as it leads to locally suited varieties, keeps down cost and keeps the soil alive.

Small quantities of oilseed rape used to be grown here, but farmers have given up on it now. Growing maize is not economical here on a larger scale, as it needs higher temperatures to develop, saving us the problem of neonic contaminated pollen.


Lindsay, I will not stop worrying about the rest of the world, I am not small minded enough to subscribe to that sort of attitude.

Conspiracy theories are only theories until proven true, If you dismiss them outright you will never uncover major scandals like the current Murdoch affair.

I am also saddenend that you see our Association meetings as an opportunity for punch-ups, that's not what I intended them for. I organised them to help all of us with our beekeeping, to preserve the health of our bees and also to have fun and enjoy each other's company.

----------


## Jon

They are good at spotting misplaced ideas though!! Only joking.
There is a lot of good information building up on this site now.
I think Gav and Nellie are doing a reasonable job. The worst thing is too much moderation. That was always a problem on the old bbka site where all the jokes and humour got deleted off by one or other of the moderators.




> One of the reason why Orkney bees do well on minimal care is that our farmers mostly reuse their own grain for sowing their crops and don't buy in neonicotinoid coated seeds which contaminate soil and produce.


Evidence Doris. You have to back up your claims.

That statement has the same intellectual weight as claiming that bees do well on Orkney because there are no elephants and tigers on the island.

Could it be anything to do with lack of varroa on Orkney?
Keeping hardy native bees?
Any amount of other variables.

This is wooly thinking at its worst.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Evidence Doris. You have to back up your claims.
> 
> That statement has the same intellectual weight as claiming that bees do well on Orkney because there are no elephants and tigers on the island.
> 
> Could it be anything to do with lack of varroa on Orkney?
> Keeping hardy native bees?
> Any amount of other variables.
> 
> This is wooly thinking at its worst.


What's going on on this forum?

Anybody who uses common sense and dares to raise concerns about neonicotinoid pesticides or GM gets subjected to a system of oppression akin to the Spanish Inquisition. 

I don't have to provide evidence for every one of my statements. The unbiased reader can read my opinion, think about it and is free to agree or disagree.

----------


## Jon

No problem Doris but is is just pubtalk opinion without evidence then. Believe what you want to believe but the majority seek evidence.
I think the neutrals, and I consider myself to be in that camp, can see that as well. It is only the zealots who hold on to beliefs irrespective of the evidence presented against those beliefs.

You don't have varroa on Orkney which is a huge advantage in beekeeping terms.
Scientists try to sift out the variables according to evidence.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> No problem Doris but is is just pubtalk opinion without evidence then. Believe what you want to believe but the majority seek evidence.
> I think the neutrals can see that as well. It is only the zealots who hold on to beliefs irrespective of the evidence presented against those beliefs.
> 
> You don't have varroa on Orkney which is a huge advantage in beekeeping terms.
> Scientists try to sift out the variables according to evidence.


As I have shown before, my training in and understanding of science is better than yours. I have even proven it by showing up your failure to understand the setup of the Harvard study. 

Any concerned beekeeper would react to that study with an outcry and the demand for further studies on the effects of neonicotinoids. The fact that neither you nor Gavin nor Nellie have done so has to make anybody wonder about your true intentions.

----------


## Jon

> The fact that neither you nor Gavin nor Nellie have done so has to make anybody wonder about your true intentions.


I thought the insinuations had been left behind.
The harvard study is absolute rubbish.
Did you read randy Oliver's review last week. I posted you the link.

And you still have not answered how the Harvard study claimed that Imidacloprid in corn syrup is the cause of ccd yet only half of one percent of US corn seed is treated with Imidacloprid. Without going any further that shows that the study has been a complete farce.

To spell it out.* How does Imidacloprid get into corn syrup when corn seed is not treated with Imidacloprid*?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> I thought the insinuations had been left behind.
> The harvard study is absolute rubbish.
> Did you read randy Oliver's review last week. I posted you the link.
> 
> And you still have not answered how the Harvard study claimed that Imidacloprid in corn syrup is the cause of ccd yet only half of one percent of US corn seed is treated with Imidacloprid. Without going any further that shows that the study has been a complete farce.
> 
> To spell it out.* How does Imidacloprid get into corn syrup when corn seed is not treated with Imidacloprid*?


No need to shout, Jon.

It's fair to say that the Harvard study should have been done with Clothianidin rather than with Imidacloprid. On the other hand, these two chemicals are of the same family, neonicotinoids, and to get such a shocking result fom Imidacloprid means we need to call for an immediate retest with Clothianidin. 

In a follow-up study any possible flaws of the original study can be eliminated and we can conclusively prove or disprove the link to CCD. 

Don't you agree with an improved version of the Harvard study to be carried out immediately?

----------


## Jon

> It's fair to say that the Harvard study should have been done with Clothianidin


Quite!
Are you still claiming that this study is top notch and I have failed to grasp the implications!

But improved in what way? The study is so flawed that it would be best to start again.
It examined the toxicity of a product which was not present in the syrup tested.
It used a dosage massively above that found in the field.
It changed the dosage half way through when no effects were noted.
The study specifically claimed that Imidacloprid is the cause of CCD yet Imidacloprid is not present in corn syrup.
I have seen better GCSE biology projects.

And there is no Clothianidin in corn syrup either. Corn syrup is routinely tested for pesticide residue.

There have been dozens of studies carried out already which look at the relationship between neonicotinoids and honeybees.
The corn syrup angle is a red herring.
Most have found no problems when field realistic levels are tested.
Some have thrown up questions which merit further study, The Pettis and Alaux work on nosema interactions for example.
Or the recent bumblebee study at Stirling.

The Harvard study and the premise behind it is a waste of time. It is looking for effects caused by an insecticide which is not even present in the syrup.

----------


## Neils

> Ok I'm sorry for having thought it had been moved, I just could not find it anymore, previously I always found it on 'new posts'.
> 
> The moderatotors on this forum should really be more proactive in spotting and moving misplaced threads, all good indicators of a properly run forum.


From a practical point of view, we do. 

It tends to take the form of splitting out discussions that have wandered into new avenues of discussion (see the Foul Brood thread) rather than moving an entire thread somewhere else. It's a matter of opinion, but I don't really see that this discussion is in the wrong place.

There is also the matter that once you start shunting threads around willy nilly you confuse people or, perhaps worse, leave a plethora of "moved" redirect tags in the sub forums the thread used to exist in pointing to where it is now so unless something is definitely in the wrong place my personal preference is to leave it there.

I'm not in favour of over moderation or "thread copping" whenever something vaguely not immediately relevant to the topic gets mentioned. It's a discussion board so if a topic evolves then for the most part I'm happy to let it, when something like the Foubl Brood Conversation occurs where it's too useful to be left in a light hearted topic then we do move them out into their own threads, in the relevant areas.

If someone feels that a thread needs attention or moving then feel free to either drop me a PM or use the Report button if you want to which sends a mail to all the admins/moderators of the board. 

"New posts" is just that, it shows all the threads on the forum, regardless of location that have been updated since you last visited.

----------


## lindsay s

> I am also saddenend that you see our Association meetings as an opportunity for punch-ups, that's not what I intended them for. I organised them to help all of us with our beekeeping, to preserve the health of our bees and also to have fun and enjoy each other's company.


Sorry Doris, I will leave the boxing gloves at home. I will also arrange for some White Doves to be released at our next meeting.

----------


## Neils

> As I have shown before, my training in and understanding of science is better than yours. I have even proven it by showing up your failure to understand the setup of the Harvard study. 
> 
> Any concerned beekeeper would react to that study with an outcry and the demand for further studies on the effects of neonicotinoids. The fact that neither you nor Gavin nor Nellie have done so has to make anybody wonder about your true intentions.


Missed this bit. maybe I missed the nuance of the Harvard study, but all it showed to me was that if you give a bee enough pesticide, in far greater quantity than it is likely to encounter in real world conditions you kill it.  I could have told them that before the study started.

This study is as flawed as the one that dosed bees with pesticides, couldn't find any trace of them and hence concluded they acted in quantities "too small to measure" rather than ask what seems to me to be the obvious question "What happened to the pesticides?"

And I've never done anything *BUT* say that there should be further research into the effects of neonicotinoids. I've just not agreed that what's been done so far warrants marching on downing street with burning torches and pitchforks demanding that they be banned.

If you're wondering that much about my true intentions, why don't you just ask me?

I've got no stake in this fight, I don't do knee jerk campaigning, I don't, if I can help it, adopt a position without considering the available information. I also  don't make pesticides, I don't hold shares in companies that do or carry out any work on behalf of any company with direct links to agriculture past finance. This bee armageddon that the press keeps talking about seems to be passing me and every other beekeeper I know in this country and further afield by.

So when someone asks me to campaign on this, sign a petition here, get this banned, I like to know what happens next, and on what basis I'm being asked to support a ban on something.  I don't have the energy to do a bunch of links over the harvard study, just read the damned thing, you don't need to be a scientist or even a beekeeper to see the flaws in the methodology.

I honestly don't know why you're hanging on to this study in particular given that it's one of the few that google shows more criticism of than random blogs and the usual campaigners claiming that it's a "smoking gun".

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Missed this bit. maybe I missed the nuance of the Harvard study, but all it showed to me was that if you give a bee enough pesticide, in far greater quantity than it is likely to encounter in real world conditions you kill it.



You still don't understand it or don't want to understand it or pretend not to understand it:

Bees are extremely sensitive to the neurotoxic action of these pesticides. 
The dosing in the study was using extremely low quantities in order not to kill the bees, as the target of the study was to observe the long term effects.

By saying _'they gave the bees far greater quantities than they are likely to encounter in the field'_ you are misrepresenting the data: In the mass die-offs  in France and Germany bees encountered doses that did kill the field bees in large numbers. The fact that the bees in the study stayed alive means that the doses were significanty lower than encountered in those conditions. 


Biological experiments are notoriously difficult to set up, as lots of variables are involved. The bees in this study were allowed to forage at the same time as taking in the contaminated syrup, which led to a further dilution of the poison. The researchers did well to choose small enough doses of pesticides that didn't kill the bees outright. And the fact that the colonies seemed ok for several months and then succumbed to CCD was an astounding result. 

In biological research, if you can recreate a previously observed phenomenon with your necessarily artificial setup you can draw valuable conclusions. 
The conclusion here has to be that there's a very strong possibility that neonicotinoids are the cause for CCD.

Which neonic does the damage in each case is to be estabished yet, but it's worth keeping in mind that Clothianidin works in even smaller concentrations than Imidacloprid.

----------


## Neils

They didn't study the long term effects, they only gave "field realistic" levels for 4 weeks before ramping up the quantities to, relatively, massive levels seemingly for the only reason that nothing adverse was observed.

They didn't treat for varroa until far too late in the year and when they did treat they used a pyrethoid treatment that is known to be ineffective in most parts of the USA. They also by most accepted evidence didn't "Succumb to CCD" neither the symptoms nor result was consistent with most accepted indications of CCD. No evidence of the brood combs is presented in the study and there is no indication that they tested for nosema either so to claim that it's pesticide induced CCD is stretching the data, to put it mildly. What evidence is presented for varroa is minimal and hand waved away when it is presented. 

Ignoring completely the pesticides, I'm relatively impressed that they 'only' killed 25% of their control group.

We have to be talking about different harvard studies I'm talking about the one by Dr Lu which one are you referring to?

Specifically with regards to the German incident, yes they did encounter high levels that killed the bees directly because the seed coating was incorrectly applied, the dose was too high and the original equipment used to plant the seed blew any residual dust (of which there was lots because the coating wasn't right) straight up into the air. So in that specific case you have a set of extenuating circumstances. my understanding is that steps were subsequently taken to address some points and minimise the impact of others. Ie the planters now deposit dust on the ground rather than blowing it up into the air where it can go anywhere.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Regarding the dosing rates and the death of one control colony let me repeat:




> Having been invoved in plenty of studies  myself I would say that the way they proceeded was perfectly reasonable:   For the first 4 weeks of the treatment they chose very small amounts  of pesticide in reasonable increments, from 0.1 μg/kg to 10.5. 
> 
>  Obviously they wanted to establish if there would be any immediate  reactions at these doses. It would be counterproductive to kill off all  your hives at the beginning of the study.
> 
> After 4 weeks they went up to the next range of testing, from 20 μg/kg  to 200.  That way they can look for immediate reactions from 0.1 to 200  μg/kg with a minimum of effort, I think that was done quite elegantly. 
> ...
> 
> 94 % of the treated colonies died from CCD like symptoms and 1 out of  the 4 control colonies died, but from different symptoms ('dysentery'). 
> 
> ...



Even if neonic-affected colonies eventually succumb to varroa or nosema due to their reduced abilities to ward off parasistes and diseases, the underlying rason is still the previous contamination of the brood food with neonics, which leads to underdeveloped winter bees.

----------


## Neils

Sorry, but that's rubbish. If they'd continued at the original doses for the entire duration of the experiment then I'd agree that it might be a causing factor to your underlined conclusion.

Here's mine:

Insufficient and ineffective Varroa IPM for the duration of the experiment lead to underdeveloped or sick winter bees which directly contributed to the loss of the colonies, the application of varying levels of pesticides, way above "field realistic" levels simply finished off colonies already severely weakened by Varroasis

Can't say anything about any other potential disease conditions in the colonies because they either didn't look for them or, if they did, they decided not to mention it.

If you follow their beekeeping regime, ignoring everything else, you can expect to lose around 25% of your colonies in the first year is mainly what I get from the results of their study.  Once you start artificially dosing bees over and above what they might be foraging of their own accord you can effectively finish the job off.

----------


## Stromnessbees

And here you can watch what happened in France:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9boue...feature=relmfu

part two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM2Ag...feature=relmfu

part three

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC9fW...feature=relmfu

part four

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okA8p...feature=relmfu

----------


## Neils

I will watch them because I don't think I've seen them before, but I can't do it at work.

----------


## The Drone Ranger

> a decapitating parasite that turns its victims into zombies 
> l:


I Searched BIBBA on wikipedia and I'm sure it didn't give that definition leastwise I don't remember the decapitating part ?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> And here you can watch what happened in France:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9boue...feature=relmfu
> 
> part two
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM2Ag...feature=relmfu
> 
> part three
> ...


Has anybody watched these videos yet, they are very relevant to the ongoing discussion. You can even see bees dying on a sunflower, from 'field level' neonicotinoid poisoning.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Still no reply?

Is this a boycott or do you not like the information presented there?

----------


## Neils

What's there to say Doris? I will watch it at some point when I have some time but is it going to add anything new to the debate that other documentaries haven't already? Is it going to reveal some conclusive new research that I haven't heard of? Is anything I opine about it likely to lead to anything other than another tirade or grand conspiracy about hiding "the truth" (I don't have much truck with that headline since a certain newspaper used it in 1989 on an article containing anything but).

----------


## Neils

What if I make the point that it's a 10 year old documentary reporting largely on stuff that happened 10 years before that i.e. its reporting on things nearly 20 years ago?

There are so many general points that just don't stack up that it's not even funny. If sunflowers don't need pesticides why are farmers buying pesticides treated seed? That's never addressed. It's a he said, she said argument in this but to use a borderbeeman tactic *I still don't fundamentally think that neonicotinoids are worse than what was used before* (and will come back into widespread use if we ban neonicotinoids)

----------


## Stromnessbees

> What if I make the point that it's a 10 year old documentary reporting largely on stuff that happened 10 years before that i.e. its reporting on things nearly 20 years ago?


... Then you lose all credibility. 
Just because something happened 10 years ago it hasn't lost any of it's validity.


The preposterous claim that at _'field relevant levels neonics cannot harm bees'_ is shown to be bogus in part one of this docu, just scroll to 7:00:
 If you cannot handle all of part one at once, just watch those bees dying while collecting on sunflowers, dying from _'field relevant levels'_.

----------


## Jon

Some of us read the science in the published journals. 
Others prefer to take their information from journalists, tv documentaries, internet warriors and you tube. Each to their own.

Some people still believe bee problems are caused by cell phones or phone masts and you can find evidence all over the internet about this.
Is it true?
No I don't think so.

----------


## Neils

And I'm done here. You suggested the documentary, if I'm not "credible" for pointing out that the film itself is 10 years old that's fine, but we've nothing to discuss on this matter.

If I had the choice you'd be going on my ignore list.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> If I had the choice you'd be going on my ignore list.


Of course that's what you would like to do, ignore me, because what I am pointing out here is very uncomfortable to you and if you would spend those 15 minutes to watch even just part one of this docu you would have to revise your pro pesticide attitude and admit that neonics are the cause of CCD and many other colony failures, even in the UK.

----------


## Neils

It's only 'uncomfortable' because you choose to make it so. You don't want a discussion, you want everyone to agree with you and when they don't you attack the person rather than the opinion they've put forward or make any attempt to answer any of the points raised.

That's why I'm choosing to opt out of these threads, been there done that, got the T-shirt. Perhaps this is new territory  for you and it's all exciting and you've got the bit between your teeth and you're eager to start crusading. Go for it gal, have a great time doing it, but I'm not playing any more.

 Perhaps bio bees is where you need to be posting this stuff, they'll agree with you with no argument, just what you want right?

----------


## drumgerry

Doris - people don't want to ignore you because you're in the right and they don't want to face "the facts".  They want to ignore you because you are going on and on and on about one issue.  You are getting on people's t*ts Doris.  And I see you are trying your tactics out now on the Irish Beekeeping list.

I am not an apologist for the pesticide industry (I don't think anyone else here is either) but you need to let it lie.

----------


## Calum

Its like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, poo on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Its like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, poo on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.


Calum, you are not adressing the evidence I presented, which is bees dying in the field from a neonicotinoid pesticide.
Instead you are trying to undermine my credibility, a so called 'ad hominem attack', which is part of strategy 2, as I explained earlier.

In reality you have nothing to counter the evidence I presented. To use your own analogy: you are checkmate, but you refuse to acknowledge it, it's you who is knocking over the pieces out of desperation.


The real tragedy however is, that this is not a game of chess. 
This is the sad reality that our bees are facing, with massive repercussions on our environment and on our own health.

If you have any shred of decency left then look at the evidence and face the terrible truth.

----------


## Calum

Hi Doris,
the problem is that at this time the bees are not dying in the fields. CCD remians an american problem, it does not suprise me at all that they have an issue.
In your own submission of evidences there are big big holes, in the austrian study they decetcted use of illegal pesticides, thats why they are illegal. neonicotinoid pesticides can cause issues especially if the seed is not propely coated, but so many things are not great for the world that we do, using toilet paper destroys forests, driving cars, and so on. Going pesticide free is not going to happen either.

----------


## Jon

Calum. Dying in the fields? Colony numbers have increased massively in the UK, up from 40,000 colonies to something like 140,000 in about 3 years.
Beekeeping is a fashionable hobby at the moment and some of that success will be the influx of new beekeepers but nonetheless it is something to be celebrated.
Like you say, it is the US having problems but the UK in particular seems to be doing rather well. I only lost a nuc out of about 20 colonies I had in the Autumn and I overwintered 4 apideas as well. How could that have happened when I had acres of oil seed rape just a few hundred yards from my apiary. That is an uncomfortable fact for the sky is falling brigade. They use all the same neonicotinoid pesticides here so that would tend to suggest that they are not causing huge problems. Some of the problems in the US may be due to different forms of application such as soil injection of pesticides or foliar sprays.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Hi Doris,
> the problem is that at this time the bees are not dying in the fields.


Exactly:

 When this pesticide is applied at high levels, it acts as a nerve poison that paralyses the bee. Those who are not killed outright become disorientated and cannot find their way back to the hive. 

  At lower concentrations, so called sublethal doses, the pesticide is carried into the hive with nectar and pollen, where it affects the colony on many levels:

  It affects communication within the colony, suppresses grooming and cleaning behaviour and interferes with the normal development of worker and queen larvae. 

  The colony as a whole will become a lot more susceptible to other challenges like varroa and nosema, affected queens will be superceded more often and affected winter bees will die early, leaving behind an empty hive  a classic symptom of  CCD.

  For anybody who doubts the delayed effects of this neonicotinoid on the colony I recommend to look at adverts for *Premise 75*, which is the same chemical aimed at killing termites, a group of insects related to bees which also live in colonies:

  The intent is not to kill the individual termite on contact, but to cause the collapse of the whole colony due to secondary infections as the pesticide is distributed by the workers. 
  Please also notice the deliberate long lasting effectiveness in the soil, as these chemicals are very persistent and will affect insect live for a long time wherever they have been applied, or they get moved into ground water and streams, thus contaminating drinking water and killing invertebrates that are at the basis of a whole ecosystem.
http://www.domyownpestcontrol.com/pr...ide-p-316.html 





> CCD remians an american problem, it does not suprise me at all that they have an issue.


Not true:

I have seen CCD with my own eyes in Austria, where neonic contaminated pollen has caused all my friend's colonies to collapse, nearly all the adult bees had left the colony and only a handfull were left behind with the queen amongst them, the stores were left untouched.

My mother's fruit trees depend on these bees for pollination, and I told her that if she doesn't want to get ladder and paintbrush for doing the pollination herself in future, she'd better help to get these pesticides banned.

 :Frown:

----------


## Bumble

Okay, I'll dip my toe in the water with something I wrote offline a few days ago, then decided not to bother because I'm not sure 'debate' is actually possible. Anyhow, here's my take on the issue.




> just watch those bees dying while collecting on sunflowers, dying from _'field relevant levels'_


I haven't watched the videos, but I'm hoping somebody who has watched it (them) will confirm that the bees referred to were tested in a laboratory to ascertain the cause of death.

A lot of my bees die, far more than one or two, or half a dozen, over the course of a day. Some of my bees die in their hive, their corpses are taken outside where they are eaten by birds etc.. I have found dead bees on flowers in our garden, but it hasn't worried me because "it happens". They have to die somewhere, everything does, and it might as well be in the middle of a nice flower.

To the best of my knowledge the bees in our hives cannot die from farm-acquired pesticide residues. I've checked aerial images quite carefully before saying this, and checked before selecting sites, so am confident that our apiaries are surrounded in part by gardens, lots and lots of big trees and then open countryside. What little agricultural land there is is probably too far for bees to bother with, and comprises a few cattle, some sheep, some pigs here and there, a bit of hay and perhaps some silage.

So, why do my bees die?

Natural age-related losses, apart from disease, predation, or when they're squashed by a careless beekeeper. I have always understood that bees reproduction, and lifestyle, evolved to make sure there are more than enough survivors to manage these losses - same as frogs and the thousands of tadpoles they produce each spring. And, talking of water, that reminds me to ask why evolution didn't ensure that, if bees are so vital to the ecosystem, why can't they swim? Loads drown in our pond. They get eaten too, by fish and water insects. All in all, bees are quite a useful food source for other wildlife.

Am I concerned about pesticides? Yes, I'm as concerned about them as most rational 21st century people, but I will never be convinced by alarmist reporting that's picked up and shoved down my throat at every opportunity by people who only ever see what they want, and who won't ask, or answer, sensible questions that might challenge their preconceptions.

My father mixed his own herbicide and pesticide concoctions, using his father's recipes. He happily puffed DDT everywhere. Both men survived to a ripe old age and their children and grandchildren seem to be doing okay too. I am fairly confident that the current crop of -icides are better for us, and the environment, than their predecessors mainly because there is research, lots and lots of it, and not all of it is done by the manufacturers. That doesn't mean that we're at the perfect situation with regard to biocide use, far from it. However stifling, or attempting to control the parameters of, debate cannot be helpful.

Am I concerned about the way bees are kept in other countries? Yes, a bit, and, for a lot of reasons, I think some beekeepers are their own worst enemies but to the best of my knowledge the Brits are a bit nicer, and a bit more careful with their bees. They can't take them the same sort of distance, don't move them from/to different climatic zones so easily, and our bees don't suffer the stresses and nutrient deficiencies believed to result from foraging on vast, single nutrient, monocultures of the US.

Do I trust the way scientific research is reported in the mass media? No, because press releases are too often just regurgitated and have a pretty picture to capture attention, or they're a bit like this http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/th.../2010/sep/24/1 which is shamelessly stolen from this thread http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/w...F=&S=&P=386165 on Bee_L 

There was this cartoon too http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif

----------


## Jon

That Guardian piece is brilliant. I hadn't seen that before.
I wonder has Alison Benjamin read it - the well known Guardian journalist and author of 'A World without Fact Checking'

----------


## drumgerry

I don't think anyone could say it better Bumble.  A measured and rational response.  And I see Doris is slagging off this forum on the Irish Beekeeping list again.  So much for her apology.

----------


## Calum

> Am I concerned about the way bees are kept in other countries? Yes, a bit, and, for a lot of reasons, I think some beekeepers are their own worst enemies but to the best of my knowledge the Brits are a bit nicer, and a bit more careful with their bees. They can't take them the same sort of distance, don't move them from/to different climatic zones so easily, and our bees don't suffer the stresses and nutrient deficiencies believed to result from foraging on vast, single nutrient, monocultures of the US.


In the US AFB is managed - they just treat symptoms with antibiotics till the symptoms subside (but the spores remain). I wonder what levels of antibiotics are in their honey (I hear it is regularly impounded in Germany due to high levels, but is regularly blended these days to reduce levels to saleable quantities).

The 15 dead colonies from Austria sound exactly like varroa. Doris I explained why this happened due to the conditions last autumn. So if you wish to keep presenting this as evidence please publish the varroa treatmend methods and dates (these have to be recorded in Austria and germany as it is the application of medicine to food producing animals) and any lab testing results confirming what killed the bees. Also when was fed, how much was fed and what was fed for overwintering. Please be a good girl and support your argument with daten,fakten,zahlen so far you have only made assertations.

----------


## Jon

The Phorid fly/zombie fly is back in the news with a US survey planned.

Not a very scientific article given that it is published in a journal called Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...-neighborhood/

----------


## Jimbo

I think I observed this Zombie bee watching at the last association talk I gave. I am certain some of the beekeepers were in a trance like state. Some had their eyes shut and one was snoring!

----------

