# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Orcadian pesticide discussions

## Stromnessbees

This discussion started here and was moved to this area the following morning.




> Winter bees are not raised on maize pollen. Maize produces pollen late July or early august and there is an abundance of other pollens available at those times.


Excuse me please, Jon, when it comes to bees I am a good observer.

I watched my bees and their pollen supply carefully, and there was very little else about where I lived during the flowering period of maize. 

And the bees did very well on it, high protein content isn't everything it seems.




> Doris you are determined to blame pesticides for bee problems at asll costs irrespective of easily available evidence. Bad science. Wooly thinking.


No, I am determined to find the reason for these colony losses, I promised my Austrian friend who lost all his colonies to look into it.

Bad science? I haven't quoted any science yet. I am trying to observe and to listen to as many beekeepers as possible and to use common sense. 

If lots of beekeepers tell me it's the pesticides then I will not just dismiss it.

----------


## Jon

During the pollen producing period of maize, which as a wind pollinated plant is a minor source for the honeybee, we also have pollen from blackberry, himalayan balsam,  rosebay willowherb, the tail end of the white clover, ling heather ie all major sources of pollen. There are also many other lesser sources available such as birds foot trefoil and then of course the ivy in the autumn. The idea that maize is a principal source of pollen for bees is incorrect. It might happen in the mid west of the US where there is basically nothing else.




> If lots of beekeepers tell me it's the pesticides then I will not just dismiss it.


If they provide real evidence rather than anecdotal evidence, fine.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Putting whole this pesticide, herbicide discussion aside. 
> I remember when I was little eating tomatoes straight from vine full of taste, smell. I remember my mother getting rid of weeds by hand from strawberries and me and my brother picking up them and eating without washing. 
> I have no allergies, no stomach upsets etc. I have few grey cells left in my brain too. 
> Do You honestly think that all this Wholesale/Monoculture/Pesticide controlled food is better or at least equal to chemistry free grown food? Even if it has the same protein level, the same "nutritional" values - nobody will convince me about taste values. Or maybe I love food too much 
> And if I like it better I bet my bees will like it better too.


I couldn't agree more!



@ Jon:



> Would be interested in just the tiniest shred of evidence for that statement.


easy:



> *                 Neonicotinoid            * 
> 
>                                                                                          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Neonicotinoids* are a class of neuro-active insecticides chemically related to nicotine.

----------


## Jon

Evidence of this statement was what I was interested in. I know what neonicotinoids are.




> the bees' ability to detect varroa could be diminished, in which case fewer mites will be removed

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Evidence of this statement was what I was interested in. I know what neonicotinoids are.





> the bees' ability to detect varroa could be diminished, in which case fewer mites will be removed


Just think of another neurotoxin, the simplest example is alkohol:

Children who are born to alcoholic mothers have diminished mental capacities, and it's not advisable to give children alcohol during their development, as they will end up disadvantaged in their cognitive functions.


Neurotoxins affect nerve cells, that means anything to do with sensation, locomotion, processing of information and memory can be disrupted.

Cleaning cells and catching bugs are complex activities for bees and I dare say that a bee 'under the influence' would do her job less than perfectly.

----------


## Jon

Yes, but it was evidence I was interested in rather than personal theories which stretch the imagination to say the least. You are comparing humans to bees. Is that a useful comparison?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Yes, but it was evidence I was interested in rather than personal theories which stretch the imagination to say the least. You are comparing humans to bees. Is that a useful comparison?


You won't give up until I quote some study, so here you go:



> Simulated exposure events on free-ranging foragers labeled with an                         RFID tag suggest that homing is impaired by thiamethoxam intoxication.


To me that means that the bees 'drunk' on pesticides couldn't find their way home anymore.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...15039.abstract 

- Bad science?

----------


## Jon

Yes, Bad science.
I read that paper when it was published a month ago and in my opinion it is bad science as it does not look at field realistic levels of the pesticide being studied.
There is no dispute at all that high levels of neonicotinoids cause disorientation. The issue is whether there are problems at field realistic doses.

----------


## Stromnessbees

But it proves that the effect of neonics on bees is typical of a neurotoxin, similar to the effect that alcohol has on humans.

My point is that even if the neonic levels are so low that most of the foragers can still find their way home, the fact that the brood food is contaminated with the nerve poison will lead to dummer bees in the next generation.

----------


## Jon

Interesting theory but would need some evidence as opposed to wild conjecture!

If you drank a pint of petrol it would kill you. Should we ban petrol?

----------


## Stromnessbees

And whilst I'm at it, here's another result of a recent study:



> After 12 weeks of imidacloprid dosing, all the bees were alive. But  after 23 weeks, 15 out of 16 of the imidacloprid-treated hives94%had  died. Those exposed to the highest levels of the pesticide died first.


... the full effect of the neonic damage only showed itself 6 months after exposure!

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...pesticide.html 

- Bad science again?

----------


## Calum

> I remember when I was little eating tomatoes straight from vine full of taste, smell. I remember my mother getting rid of weeds by hand from strawberries and me and my brother picking up them and eating without washing. 
> I have no allergies, no stomach upsets etc. I have few grey cells left in my brain too. 
> Do You honestly think that all this Wholesale/Monoculture/Pesticide controlled food is better or at least equal to chemistry free grown food? Even if it has the same protein level, the same "nutritional" values - nobody will convince me about taste values. Or maybe I love food too much


true, but if you want to feed everyone on the planet especially with the current levels of meat we enjoy, either destroy much more nature for agicultural land or live with pesticides and fertilisers, or kill of a large tract of the population (or a smaller trace that eats alot of meat  :Smile: 

My observations have been that the bees will avoid maize if they can find anything else at all, anything. Even bio maize.

----------


## Jon

Really bad science!!!
That paper has become an internet joke.
They fed bees levels of Imidacloprid up to 400 times that found in pollen and nectar and the bees died.
They started off using low dosages equivalent to field realistic levels and nothing happened so after 12 weeks they racked up the dosage by a huge factor and killed most of the colonies in the study.
Are you surprised?
Have you read these papers you are quoting from carefully from cover to cover or have you just read the abstracts?
Read them properly and you will see they are complete dross.
The other thing is that only half of one percent of maize in the US is treated with Imidacloprid these days so the entire premise of the experiment was nonsense.




> My observations have been that the bees will avoid maize if they can find anything else at all, anything. Even bio maize.


It has been noted over and over that bees only go for maize pollen as a last resort.

----------


## Neils

Stunning conclusion there. Exposing bees to massive overdoses of imidacloprid kills them with those given the largest doses dying first.  

Ignoring the rest of the nonsense in that report I did notice that they also managed to kill 25% of their control group in less than a year which makes me think that at the very least they aren't very good beekeepers, generally the most inept, let alone unlucky,  take at least 2 seasons to kill their bees.

----------


## gavin

> If you drank a pint of petrol it would kill you. Should we ban petrol?


Or should we ban cyanide-containing foods?  Or cyanide-containing natural products sold as medicines?

Doris:

1) alcohol is not a neurotoxin.  It does not specifically affect nerve tissue
2) why call an insecticide a 'nerve poison'?  It seems like you are trying to demonise the product
3) when exposed to low levels of imidacloprid the bees metabolise it and it causes no problem to them
4) contaminated brood food 'will lead to dummer (sic) bees in the next generation'.  *Will*?  Why dumber?  And if the bees in the next generation are so dumb why do bee colonies raising a couple of cycles of young bees on OSR pollen not show any problems?  The stuff spread by Tennekes on irreversible binding was nonsense, as we discussed here before.  

To arrive at a proper understanding of what ails bees it is necessary to throw off preconceived ideas, biases and wishful thinking and look with fresh eyes at not just the science that fits the answer you would have wanted but at the sum total of what all the research is telling you.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> 1) alcohol is not a neurotoxin.  It does not specifically affect nerve tissue
> 2) why call an insecticide a 'nerve poison'?  It seems like you are trying to demonise the product


No need to demonise the noenicotinoids: they are designed to kill insects.
They kill insects by acting on their nervous system, therefore they are poisonous to nerves.
... They do exactly what it says on the tin.

Why are you lot so desperately defending these products?

 :Confused:

----------


## Jon

> Why are you lot so desperately defending these products?


because the older products are far more dangerous for bees and for mammals such as homo sapiens.
If neonicotinoids are banned we will get the even worse stuff back being used in larger quantities again.
I am no fan of any pesticide but I have arrived at a point in my life where I consider that living in the real world is more useful that ranting without proposing solutions. It is a pragmatic stance.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> because the older products are far more dangerous for bees and for mammals such as homo sapiens.
> If neonicotinoids are banned we will get the even worse stuff back being used in larger quantities again.



How can the old stuff have been worse if the massive colony losses only started when the neonics came along?

Previoulsy you would have localised events of bee poisoning, now we have massive colony losses over whole regions.

----------


## gavin

But they _didn't_ start when neonics came along!  Massive bee losses have been a feature of beekeeping for a very long time, probably as long as beekeeping itself!  And the spread of Varroa has made them worse.  Yes, previously there were localised bee poisoning incidents.  Now - with the exception of the maize planter dust episodes - bee poisoning is rare.  Maybe someone will re-post Prof Ratniek's graph on this.

----------


## Jon

Neonicotinoids were introduced in the US 1994 and ccd was first reported in 2006. 
And did you miss the point I made about blaming the swimmers in the swimming pool the other day.




> now we have massive colony losses over whole regions


Not the UK. We have a 3 fold increase over 3 years. Some regions show losses and some show increase and it does not appear to be related to neonicotinoids.

----------


## Neils

I think the question for the Ban the Neonicotinoid brigade is

Why Do you hate otters?

Environment Agency



> The return of the otter to most of England is one of the major conservation success stories of the last 30 years. *The main reason for this increase has been the reduction in levels of toxic pesticides,* but the improvements in water quality and consequent increase in fish stocks have probably played a significant part.


Emotive quoting of selective sections of text that back up my arguments at the ready.
If it's good enough for the goose...

Just in case that didn't work, here's a picture, look at their tiny human hands!


Otters I tell you!

----------


## Jon

Ratniek's graph
pesticide incidents uk.jpg

Neil.
if you are going to talk about otters, I would like to bring the Capybara to the table or step him up to the plate or whatever.

http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/

----------


## gavin

> Why are you lot so desperately defending these products?


Hi Doris

Speaking for myself, I'm trying to make a small stand for rationality, for common sense, for evidence-based decision making rather than gut reaction, belief system stuff.  The world needs it and beekeeping in particular needs it.  First GM and now pesticides - beekeeping and beekeepers are being used by campaigners.  It is time to stop this.

----------


## Neils

> Why are you lot so desperately defending these products?


 I'm not, I'm pointing out that It's not a simple or straightforward argument and a lot of the studies linked have serious flaws.

And I like Otters.

Banning Neonicotinoids means re-introducing what were in widespread use before them. They were definitely toxic to bees and much else besides so I just honestly don't see banning the neonics making things better compared to how they were before.

----------


## gavin

Otters!!  I just love your lateral thinking.  

A couple of weeks ago I was delighted to find - in the neonic-soaked landscape in which I do my beekeeping, just a few hundred m from my apiary, otter spraint.

----------


## Neils

Lateral? I thought it was an exercise in stating the obvious.  Neonics gone, means the pesticides that were in use before come back. Otters didn't live in many rivers because those pesticides tended to run off and kill both the fish and the otters themselves.  

Are they good for bees? Of course they aren't they're insecticides. Are they as bad for the rest of the environment as what we used before?  I'd suggest not.

Just making a point that perhaps it's not as simple, nor straightforward and to be careful what you wish for.

----------


## Jon

I saw an Otter in the River Lagan about a mile from where I live just a few years ago. And I had a fox in the garden on Saturday morning. The dog started barking and going buck mad at 6.15 am and when I went downstairs she was trying to get out to a fox which was standing at the end of the patio. You would think the crop dusters would have got rid of all this dangerous wildlife in Belfast by now.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Ratniek's graph
> pesticide incidents uk.jpg


This graph is extremely deceiving:

It completely ignores the fact that neonics don't kill colonies in the same way as the older pesticides and therefore doesn't include them in the data.

Older pesticides cause masses of dying bees in front of the hives and are comparatively easy to detect in the samples.

The neonic effect is delayed, colonies suffer months after exposure and often seemingly die from other causes like varroa and nosema, while the underlying cause is the low level earlier poisoning.

----------


## Jon

> The neonic effect is delayed, colonies suffer months after exposure and often seemingly die from other causes like varroa and nosema, while the underlying reason is the low level earlier poisoning.


If you think that is true, feel free to provide some references.
What do you reckon about Rafa Nadal and the Capybaras?

----------


## Stromnessbees

The main reason for the return of the otters are the increased water margins enforced by DEFRA. 
The rivers are a lot less polluted now because agricultural activities don't come right to the water's edge anymore. 

_Buffer zones_ is the key phrase there.

----------


## Neils

Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase.  I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.

Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.

using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated  :Frown:

----------


## Stromnessbees

> ...
> 
> using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated



Are you arguing for the argument's sake?

I do wonder who this extra line was meant for.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their use increase. * I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire, unmoving, conclusion on.*
> 
> Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
> 
> using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated


You slipped up, Nellie!

This message wasn't intended to be posted, it was meant for you mates, wasn't it?

----------


## Stromnessbees

> I think the question for the Ban the Neonicotinoid brigade is
> 
> Why Do you hate otters?
> 
> Environment Agency
> 
> 
> Emotive quoting of selective sections of text that back up my arguments at the ready.
> If it's good enough for the goose...


And you slipped up here, too. Again this wasn't meant to be posted but it's all part of your little internal converstion there.

You need to practise more, Nellie!

The boss won't be happy with you, especially as I have photographed all these posts.
No bonus for you, Nellie!

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Ratniek's graph
> Attachment 947
> 
> *Neil.
> if you are going to talk about otters, I would like to bring the Capybara to the table or step him up to the plate or whatever.
> * 
> http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/


Jon, you obviously slipped up, too, what a shame!

----------


## Stromnessbees

Warning: there are shills on this forum: please read the following  messages carefully, they were meant for an internal conversation that  goes on behind the scenes:




> Declining use of pesticides harmful to fish and/or   mammals is what I'm going to stick with and I don't want to see their   use increase.  I even bolded the bit I intended to base my entire,   unmoving, conclusion on.
> 
> Buffer zones are simply deceiving and ignore the fact that pesticides toxic to both Fish and mammals are the cause.
> 
> using this style of argument isn't as satisfying as I anticipated





> Ratniek's graph
> Attachment 947
> 
> Neil.
> if you are going to talk about otters, I would like to bring the Capybara to the table or step him up to the plate or whatever.
> 
> http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/



OK Doris, it saddens me to have to do this but really, this is too much.  I awoke this morning to eight copies of this message posted on eight sub-fora here.  It is insulting to call people shills ("_A person engaged in covert advertising.  The shill attempts to spread buzz  by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense  of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services._") and both the insult and the spamming is totally out of order.  Your accusation of orchestration and behind the scenes connivance is nonsense too, I wasn't consulting before I posted.

I'm now tidying up the mess you've left by deleting seven of the copies of the post and leaving one transferred to here.  The other discussion that intervened in the 'Winter Losses' thread is coming here too.

Doris, you know both Jon and myself personally.  There is no excuse for this kind of name calling.  Please don't do it again.  Enthusiastic debate is fine, but this sort of thing isn't.

Gavin

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shill

----------


## Jon

Hi Doris. Your PMs are full.
Had to look up what shill means.
Hope you are ok. That thing about the capybara is a joke website which suggests that Rafa Nadal has a face like a Capybara!
I posted it to make people laugh, yourself included!
Maybe lost in translation.
Did you not click on my link.
He does actually look a bit like a capybara.

http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/

I think Neil's comment referred to borderbeeman's style of putting stuff in *bold* or CAPSLOCK
He was being ironic as far as I could see.

----------


## Neils

> Are you arguing for the argument's sake?
> 
> I do wonder who this extra line was meant for.


Well I went so far as to go and read up on the points that you raised, but as I'd decided for the point of argument that I was going to stick with the emotive subject of pesticides killing otters I had to both discount your points and rubbish them.

Is it just because I simply reworded a few of your counters to fit my argument that's upset that much?

And yes for that post, I'm pretty much arguing in that way for the sake of raising a completely separate point which you seem to have amply made for me which would be _isn't it frustrating to [try] and discuss something with someone who has no interest in any view or conclusion that doesn't fit their pre-defined viewpoint/conclusion?_




> And you slipped up here, too. Again this wasn't meant to be posted but it's all part of your little internal converstion there.
> 
> You need to practise more, Nellie!
> 
> The boss won't be happy with you, especially as I have photographed all these posts.
> No bonus for you, Nellie!


Fine by me, I intended every post, I'll send you a frame for the photos if you like.

Sadly this thread goes the way of every other one, on every other forum where the pro-ban "shill", to use your own description, doesn't get their way.

You don't need to convince me that insecticides are bad for insects. You do need to convince me that we should be banning a class of pesticides that appear to be relatively benign to honey bees when used correctly and are much, much safer to fish and otters (and much else besides). 

Especially when the crux of the argument is that these pesticides are killing bees in massive numbers all over the world. I can accept the argument I just want you (generic you) to show me the evidence.  I've not seen any so far, I've seen some studies that have drawn some worrying conclusions in lab trials, but nothing in field trials that points to "Bee-mageddon" and much that is either "bad science" or "bad interpretation" to try and fuel what appears, under the surface, to be as much a campaign against big business as anything to do with care for the environment. Beekeepers seem to be just a convenient avenue to garner support.

The making up of issues to support the argument is hiding a serious point, discussion and research that needs to be had.  If neonicotinoids generally are causing bee die offs then the first simple graph should be to overlay quantities used on top of bee losses from, say, 1996 onwards. There should be a noticeable correlation and yet there doesn't appear to be, why is that?  Why did it take a decade since their introduction for CCD to show up given their apparent rampant toxicity in every other scenario? They can kill at undetectable levels in studies, yet it took a decade of heavy use in US agriculture for them to have an impact on honey bees?

If you want me to pluck what I consider to be the important issue facing honey bees at the moment I'm going to stick with Varroa.

And for the record, I'm perfectly serious about Otters so if you want me to support a ban on Neonicotinoids because they're killing my bees, I want to know what will replace them because I don't want stuff killing my Otters instead.

----------


## gavin

> http://capybarasthatlooklikerafaelnadal.tumblr.com/


LOL!!  I can't see how anyone could remain serious after clicking that link!

----------


## Jon

I was at a funeral on Sunday and one of my mates got the website up on his iphone and passed it around.
Some people do not know how to behave! My favourite is the one with the water bottle.

----------


## Neils

I'm well versed in the notion that not agreeing with the neonicotinoid ban makes you in the  employ of Bayer (can I work for Monsanto though they've got extra, extra evil!), but I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the link between capybaras and pesticides, less so the link to rafael nadal.

Maybe I should add shill services to the company website, give myself a stern talking to and revoke this years bonus.

----------


## Jon

Monsanto give you a jetpack and an invisibility cloak when you point out 100 of borderbeeman's factual inexactitudes.




> but I'm somewhat at a loss to understand the link between capybaras and pesticides, less so the link to rafael nadal.


You like otters. I like capybaras. We have to keep our waterways clean.

----------


## Jon

This is becoming surreal. Doris has cut and pasted every post on this thread onto the US bee forum Beesource claiming some kind of a massive conspiracy theory. Anyone interested in going round in circles for ever, fell free to click this link.

----------


## Neils

Do I need to make a tin foil hat first?

I know not blindly accepting Neonics need banning makes you an employee of Bayer (they could at least have the decency to pay me money if I'm apparently their spokesman) but this is somewhat surreal.

----------


## Jon

> Do I need to make a tin foil hat first?


Better safe than sorry. There are a lot of dangerous chemicals out there which are deflected by tinfoil.

----------


## lindsay s

Hello 
Apart from an occasional look it’s been a few months since I was last active on this forum. Last Friday, when I decided to catch up, I soon found that Doris had caused the **** to hit the fan! This is one argument I wish to stay out of but I do think it’s wrong to use the term Orcadian. Doris isn’t a native of Orkney and neither does she speak for all of Orkney’s beekeepers.
Signed by an embarrassed Orkney beekeeper.

----------


## gavin

Sorry about that Lindsay - I should have thought a little longer about the title of the thread.  There is quite a community of well-mannered beekeepers in Orkney and you can reach their discussion group by appropriate clicking in the 'Local Associations' area.

----------

