# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Rather good, Dan!

## Alvearium

This link still seems to take you to this interesting programme from the States.
Hard hitting and relevant for all beekeepers.
Alvearium

----------


## Trog

I got part of the way through this but found myself wondering why bees would bother with maize.  The corn I attempt to grow (without success generally; we don't have the weather for it) is wind pollinated and I've never seen a bee on it.  Nicotine itself was an often-used pesticide in the old days, I believe. I wonder if that had an effect on bees?  Is part of the problem the lack of a varied diet?  Acres and acres of monoculture?

It's going to be interesting finding out in due course how the bees living without access to intensive agricultural crops compare with those that gorge themselves on OSR, etc., and also how those away from intensive agriculture but having to cope with varroa compare with their island/remote cousins who do not yet have it.

----------


## gavin

> It's going to be interesting finding out in due course how the bees living without access to intensive agricultural crops compare with those that gorge themselves on OSR, etc., and also how those away from intensive agriculture but having to cope with varroa compare with their island/remote cousins who do not yet have it.


What are we likely to learn that we don't already know?  Every year is different, simply because the conditions for a good nectar flow can be so exacting.  Across the UK, beekeepers still see rape as a bonanza when the conditions are right.  We see no hunched bees winking, no dramatic loss of foragers, no bees rejected at the entrance.  I still can watch waggle dances pointing at our local (and not so local) rape fields.  And, once the weather conditions are right, nectar floods in.

We certainly don't need new research to tell us that Varroa causes serious losses when not controlled properly.  Nor do we need scientists implying that the treatments we use for Varroa might be damaging bees already exposed to farm chemicals when there is absolutely no evidence, not even a hint of circumstantial evidence, that that is the case out there is real bee hives.

----------


## gavin

> Hard hitting and relevant for all beekeepers.


I've no argument that the US regulators took their eye off the ball with the initial registration of clothianidin.  See my post from three years ago on Bee-L, copied below.  When you say that it is relevant for all beekeepers do you mean that the UK regulators were similarly lax?  My impression is that they were cautious.

The Dan Rather programme took a one-sided view.  The work from Penn State showed that it was beekeeper chemicals that were present at alarming levels, and when they tried to relate chemical presence to CCD they couldn't find anything to back up their hunch that pesticides were part of the story.  Other than coumaphos possibly protecting from CCD.

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/w...155414%2B0000C

Re: FW: CATCH THE BUZZ NRDC SUES EPA

From: Gavin Ramsay <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:54:14 +0000

Hi Stan and Jim

I too wondered about this apparently water-tight all-clear for clothianidin.  If you go to the journal's web pages you see not just the abstract:

http://tinyurl.com/5ffqfa

but a link to a free PDF of the full paper at the bottom of the page.

This is a better quality risk assessment than many, but still falls short of 'proof' that this seed dressing is safe for bees on canola/oilseed rape in the way Jim presented it. 

One ha plots in their square form are 100m x 100m.  Even here in rural Scotland, where our agriculture is small scale, we wouldn't consider 1 ha to be a typical 'field', perhaps just a tenth of one.  Siting pairs of colonies, one with seed dressing one with a blank, separated by 300m and in an area that may have other oilseed rape does not convince me that the case is made.  Bees are essentially landscape-scale foragers.  In some environments they will preferentially forage very locally, but in others they will gather their resources with almost equal effectiveness over a radius of a few km.  I've personally watched them fly about 9 km to oilseed rape.  Unless they were foraging very locally (for example due to poor weather, or perhaps overabundant resources in their local patch), the colonies in the treated plots and the ones in the control plots could both have similar proportions of treated and control forage.  If they are flying to additional untreated fields in the area any clothianidin would be further diluted.  You have to regard the small but not insignificant loss of colonies from both treated and control plots in that light.  I just don't know what it means.

all the best

Gavin

**************************************************  **
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
**************************************************  **

----------


## Trog

There are always things to find out, Gavin,  and what is discovered is not always what was expected.  Take nylon, for example.

I thought scientists were open-minded ...

----------


## Neils

Interesting watch if somewhat selective in its presentation I felt but to give it it's due, they did at least make a reasonable case and explanation of neonicotinoids.

That said I don't think they said anything that we haven't already heard before when it comes to bees and (conveniently) ignored much else that didn't back up some of the assertions.

What it did highlight was how utterly ineffective and inept the EPA was/is.  I've read similar allegations raised towards the UK, but there is such a high noise to signal ratio around this discussion that that it's very hard to know just how much eyeball rolling should be done when DEFRA et al are accused, along with everyone but the guy who writes for the Independent, of being in the pockets of Bayer.

I know to all intents and purposes that makes me "pro-pesticide" in this excuse for a debate, but rather than pro-neonicotinoid I simply remain much more anti the alternatives that will replace them given the current evidence.

----------


## Alvearium

Yes Gavin, reply just as expected. Should you not reply as a participant rather than an administrator when we come to subjects you profess to be passionate about. Seems to me that the administrator should be doing other things. Why make the thinly veiled references to the Dundee Research? Did I refer to it? You just cannot let up can you? Why not stand back and let folk discuss among themselves without over control?
Alvearium

----------


## marion.orca

Alvearium - I think your comment is entirely inappropriate. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and views and it does not make them any less passionate about their chosen subject, as you imply. I regard the response from Gavin as a participant in the discussion. He just happens to also be the administrator at the same time. And as for he should be doing other things, what possible business is it of yours what people do with their own time ?

----------


## Ruary

I agree with Marion, Gavin was just responding to the thread, are you expecting him to have to log on twice, once as administrator and then also as a member???
Ruary

----------


## gavin

I gave two responses in two different posts.  One was to your post on the Dan Rather programme Alvearium, and the other was to Trog's comments which I took, possibly mistakenly, to be an oblique reference to the Dundee University-SBA survey.  I happen to believe that the latter is naive and so I disagreed that it was likely to tell us anything useful about the differences between beekeeping in arable and non-arable areas.  Bee performance is dominated by issues of the state of the forage (and that includes weather), beekeeper management, and queen mating.  As Marion said, I am simply participating in a discussion and describing my response as 'over control' is not right.  This place is for discussion, and the only control exercised is applied when folk get out of order which has only happened once.

And Trog, open-mindedness is, in my view, an absolute prerequisite for good science.  Totally.  That means no jumping to conclusions, no diving ahead without considering the existing evidence, no listening to campaigners ahead of paying attention to the existing science.  Essentially no wishful thinking, as that is the road to poor science, and even to seeking and collecting data that back up your existing assumptions.  It means stepping back from your preconceptions, thinking broadly, designing work that makes no assumptions about the answer, then proceeding to collect and analyse data that can help decide between alternatives, or refute a hypothesis.  A lot of science gets one or more of these wrong, sometimes badly.

In the case of the Dundee-SBA survey you could argue that the approach used is neutral.  As originally conceived, it was an attempt to prove that pesticides were harming bee colonies having started with an assumption that they were.  Now it is including a couple of the other factors (Nosema and Varroa, and I don't know how well they are being assessed as it takes professional time and effort to get that right) but if anyone really wants to understand what kills (or weakens) bee colonies you need to take a holistic approach that looks at all the important factors.  You can find that approach in some of the other studies on this internationally.

Nice to have at least some debate on this anyway - I hope that there is a lot more to come.

best wishes

Gavin

----------


## gavin

> are you expecting him to have to log on twice, once as administrator and then also as a member???


I was wondering if he would rather that I was not the Administrator, simply because I had objections to a project he got himself involved with.  Or perhaps he expects me not to comment on it at all because I am the Administrator.  Neither is going to happen, but all reasonable views will be tolerated here.  It is, of course, impossible for me to log in as an ordinary member (unless I adopt my alter ego as the East of Scotland Apiary guy, but that would be seen as being deceptive ... )

PS  Welcome, Ruary!

----------


## Jon

> PS  Welcome, Ruary!


Have you brought your microscope with you?

Re the hypothesis of neonicotinoids causing current bee problems:

Most Oil Seed Rape seed is pre treated with neonicotinoid pesticide these days.
Why then do colonies build up really well on it in April and May.

Why do commercial beekeepers move their colonies to oil seed rape fields if it is so dangerous?
They say turkeys do not vote for Christmas.

Why have colony numbers tripled in the uk from 40,000 to 120,000 in the past 3 years if bees are having so many problems? (BBKA figures)
I just don't see this bee holocaust which the UK press bang on about. It's all in the US, which is usually where you find Dan Rather as well.

Where is the field study evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees?
Dozens of researchers in many different countries have looked at this and found no linkage.
Incidents such as the notorious case in Germany a couple of years back were due to problems with the seed drilling process which released clouds of contaminated dust in an area foraged over by bees.
All the studies showing harm such as the guttation water work of Girolami have been lab based with bees being housed individually in little glass tubes. Other stresses come into play which renders the data questionable.

Like a lot of people, I started out assuming that neonicotinoids were the main cause of bee problems but once I stopped listening to the ranters who have their own agenda, I came to a different conclusion. There are a lot of science papers to read and the vast majority of them fail to show any linkage between neonicotinoids and bee problems. The problem is that a lot of people are driven by the crap they read in the UK press or in poorly researched books such as 'world without bees' which make the same sensationalist claims.

----------


## Trog

> I gave two responses in two different posts.  One was to your post on the Dan Rather programme Alvearium, and the other was to Trog's comments which I took, possibly mistakenly, to be an oblique reference to the Dundee University-SBA survey.  I happen to believe that the latter is naive and so I disagreed that it was likely to tell us anything useful about the differences between beekeeping in arable and non-arable areas.  Bee performance is dominated by issues of the state of the forage (and that includes weather), beekeeper management, and queen mating.  As Marion said, I am simply participating in a discussion and describing my response as 'over control' is not right.  This place is for discussion, and the only control exercised is applied when folk get out of order which has only happened once.
> 
> And Trog, open-mindedness is, in my view, an absolute prerequisite for good science.  Totally.  That means no jumping to conclusions, no diving ahead without considering the existing evidence, no listening to campaigners ahead of paying attention to the existing science.  Essentially no wishful thinking, as that is the road to poor science, and even to seeking and collecting data that back up your existing assumptions.  It means stepping back from your preconceptions, thinking broadly, designing work that makes no assumptions about the answer, then proceeding to collect and analyse data that can help decide between alternatives, or refute a hypothesis.  A lot of science gets one or more of these wrong, sometimes badly.
> 
> In the case of the Dundee-SBA survey you could argue that the approach used is neutral.  As originally conceived, it was an attempt to prove that pesticides were harming bee colonies having started with an assumption that they were.  Now it is including a couple of the other factors (Nosema and Varroa, and I don't know how well they are being assessed as it takes professional time and effort to get that right) but if anyone really wants to understand what kills (or weakens) bee colonies you need to take a holistic approach that looks at all the important factors.  You can find that approach in some of the other studies on this internationally.
> 
> Nice to have at least some debate on this anyway - I hope that there is a lot more to come.
> 
> best wishes
> ...


Hoist by your own petard, Gavin.  You're being just as dogmatic in your views as those you seek to rubbish at every opportunity.

IF all the other research used both varroa-infested bees and those currently free of it; IF all the other research used bees from a wide variety of backgrounds and forage conditions; IF all the other research took into account weather and available forage over a long period, THEN you MIGHT have a point.

----------


## gavin

> Hoist by your own petard, Gavin.  You're being just as dogmatic in your views as those you seek to rubbish at every opportunity.


Sorry Trog, I can't agree at all.  My position on pesticides has shifted in exactly the same way Jon explained from deep suspicion of pesticides to deep suspicion of those who jump on bandwagons without studying the large accumulating pool of scientific data on the topic.  That is because I look at the available evidence and reconsider.  It isn't dogma that makes me criticise the project, it is because that is what scientists do - criticise and argue.  The process makes science better, or at least it should.  Maybe the Dundee project is now shifting from utter naivety to a position that is more easily justified - I just don't know.  No-one is explaining what the changes in its approach are.  

The other studies didn't use Varroa infested and Varroa-free colonies but some of them did assess a wide range of threats to colony health, including Varroa.  In several studies there was no association between bee ill-health or mortality and pesticide residues or presumed exposure from assessing the surrounding environment, but there were associations with other factors including pests and diseases. 

all the best

Gavin

----------


## The Drone Ranger

The question I would ask is 

Has anyone on this forum lost a bee colony where the cause was pesticides?

I think SASA would have data on bees sent to them for pesticide testing which proved positive.

Meanwhile "don't panic Captain Mainwaring"  :Smile: 

Re the study in Dundee Uni.  I feel that's a lot of money £1.8M to investigate a theory 
Personally I would use that cash to either fix chalkbrood or start a Scottish bee breeding initiative.
How about plotting drone congregation areas.
OR Collecting dead bees from the floors of every beekeeper in Scotland during this Winter and checking their genetic makeup.

There are so many things screaming out for proper research and so little cash to go round I hope something useful comes out of the study

----------


## Jon

Why would you want to know the genetic makeup of every beekeeper in Scotland. :Embarrassment: 

I am with you though DR. The neonic issue re. bees has been researched extensively all over the world and the data is all tending to point away from neonics being the big problem.

----------


## Jon

This recent study from Spain looks to be very relevant to the work at Dundee.
Higes in particular has been very involved in looking at links between N Ceranae and pesticides with regard to colony losses in Spain.

It coincides with the study by Mullin et al in that it notes that the main pesticides found in bee colonies were put there by the beekeeper as part of varroa control.

Overview of Pesticide Residues in Stored Pollen and Their Potential
Effect on Bee Colony (Apis mellifera) Losses in Spain
J. BERNAL,1,2 E. GARRIDO-BAILO´ N,3 M. J. DEL NOZAL,1 A. V. GONZA´ LEZ-PORTO,3
R. MARTI´N-HERNA´ NDEZ,3 J. C. DIEGO,1 J. J. JIME´ NEZ,1 J. L. BERNAL,1 AND M. HIGES3

ABSTRACT In the last decade, an increase in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colony losses has been
reported in several countries. The causes of this decline are still not clear. This study was set out to
evaluate the pesticide residues in stored pollen from honey bee colonies and their possible impact on
honey bee losses in Spain. In total, 1,021 professional apiaries were randomly selected. All pollen
samples were subjected to multiresidue analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (MS) and
liquid chromatography-MS; moreover, speciÞc methods were applied for neonicotinoids and Þpronil.
A palynological analysis also was carried out to conÞrm the type of foraging crop. Pesticide residues
were detected in 42% of samples collected in spring, and only in 31% of samples collected in autumn.
Fluvalinate and chlorfenvinphos were the most frequently detected pesticides in the analyzed
samples. Fipronil was detected in 3.7% of all the spring samples but never in autumn samples, and
neonicotinoid residues were not detected. More than 47.8% of stored pollen samples belonged to wild
vegetation, and sunßower (Heliantus spp.) pollen was only detected in 10.4% of the samples. A direct
relation between pesticide residues found in stored pollen samples and colony losses was not evident
accordingly to the obtained results. Further studies are necessary to determine the possible role of
the most frequent and abundant pesticides (such as acaricides) and the synergism among them and
with other pathogens more prevalent in Spain.

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/...773B84251B456F

----------


## Neils

Doesn't that pave the way for the now infamous line "...in quantities too small to be detected"?

Remind me too try that one out next time I come back skint from the pub:

"there was cash in my wallet when I entered The Ship, so it must still be there..."  :Big Grin:

----------


## Jon

> ..in quantities too small to be detected"?


Yes Physicists call it the Chandler particle.
Apparently they are firing bees around the Hadron collider as we speak and looking for Imidacloprid residue from the resulting collisions. :Wink: 

From the discussion in the above paper:




> The toxicity of imidacloprid and its metabolites to
> honey bees has been addressed previously (Faucon et
> al. 2005), although to date, no association between its
> appearance in pollen and the mortality of honey bee
> colonies has been demonstrated in the field (Chauzat
> et al. 2009, Nguyen et al. 2009). Imidacloprid is authorized
> in Spain for use in maize and sunflower crops,
> fruit trees and vegetable crops and there is a great
> concern about its implication in bee disappearance. In
> ...

----------


## Neils

Well we know that reaching that conclusion has to mean we can only reach one ourselves, that they're in the pocket of Bayer.

All jokes aside those two points are where I start to question what the actual aim of the anti-neonicotinoid crowd actually is.

I had a bunch of extra waffle tacked on, but frankly it didn't say anything that I haven't  said umpteen times already.

----------


## The Drone Ranger

There are lots of chemicals found in humans which don't belong there and might not be doing us any good.
Here's one 
http://www.rense.com/general19/fih.htm

But the real threats come from disease lets say TB and malaria for instance.

If we had some parasite which drank our blood and was around the size of a hedgehog that one might command most of our attention.

So in bees Varroa need most attention then brood diseases then virus, then we can turn our attention to traces of chemicals.
Perhaps that means we miss something important but you wouldn't stop in the middle of a busy motorway to tie your shoelace. Leaving it might trip you up but .....

----------


## Stromnessbees

The video in the original post is spot on. 

Here is another one about recent research from Purdue University:

Realistic field studies that show the dangers of neonic pesticides for our bees, as well as shocking new insights about pollution from talc used in the planting process of pesticide coated seeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25i6h...ure=plpp_video


What has the _Defend-Neonics-Brigade_ to hold up against that? - More excuses and rubbishing of honest science?

----------


## Jon

I read that report and made a post about it on bee-L a while back as there is a definite need to eliminate this risk to bees and other pollinators.
The planter dust issue has been highlighted here many times and it is a big problem for bees as the dust is many thousands of times more toxic than the LD50 for honeybees.

Post 65 in this recent thread for example.

Planter dust caused the major bee die off incident incident in Germany in 2008 and has been implicated in the US where they seem to use more dangerous seed drilling techniques which are not clearly regulated. I am not aware of any incidents of this sort in the UK but maybe someone will correct me on that one.

Nothing new here at all but there is a strong need for regulation and fines for anyone caught flaunting regulations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, we're back to neonickery and the distortion of science.  So I'm moving this discussion to where it belongs.  Perhaps I should have done that when the thread first appeared, but I'll do so now. G.

----------


## Neils

I was under the impression that regulations had been changed as a result of what happened in Germany and that in the EU at least vacuum planters are no longer allowed to discharge air (and participles like excess seed coatings) into the air instead it's blown onto the soil. Not perfect by any means but less indiscriminate in its distribution than before.

----------

