lawsuits, liability, class actions....

[BjornBee]

On another thread, this was posted...


>>>>>Originally Posted by jesuslives31548
As noted, I said I seen a few dead ones in the transport cage after I placed it in the honey house for return. Never said I thought I dumped the SHB by the hundreds into the hives. But after reading another beekeepers Question on here I think I figured out some if not a major factor that possible increased the SHB in and around these hives.
As far as an expert, that I'm not. I have only been keeping bees for 22 years. I have not had the amount I have now until 2 years ago. I still consider myself a hobbiest bee keeper. I have also worked ( volunteered) with the company I purchase my bees from in the spring to increase my knowledge on ever changing bee pest and problems. Even though package producing bee farms are diffrent the honey production the knowlege gained has been great. Most of these guy use many chemicals not approved for bees. But, when your family depends on it for survival you got to do what you got to do. I do know its a very common practice to use zipercide under a piece of roofing felt on the bottom board to kill SHB. I have not chosen this method due to the fact the bees from time to time will fan the powders and kill the hive. But for a package bee keepers lossing 1 out of 200 hives its not a problem.>>>>>

I would like to throw this out for discussion. I'll start with a a few points.....

1)In recent CCD testing, it was found that chemical levels within bees themselves, apparently was high enough to contaminate pollen collected by bees, and trapped, prior to entering the hive.

2)For years, many have commented on poor queens being produced, with most blame being possibly due to chemicals. Research has found that checkmite alone will lower the production, the queens viability, and lifespan, and even cause bees to make smaller queen cells, and thus smaller queens.

So how far are we from testing chemicals in bees being sold and passed onto the consumers?

Can you imagine something as simple as taking packages, confining them inside a hive, feeding syrup, and then testing for contamination of the stored honey or wax?

We have bee producers using illegal chemicals, and then passing on their products such as nucs and even packages, to unknowing consumers who then possibly contaminate their hives, and food products.

How can any producer of any product in good conscience do this, have support within the public, and get away with such practices? Can you imagine buying chickens, food products, or about anything produced under these circumstances?

As I said on the other thread, I'm glad someone else acknowledges this stuff goes on. I'm usually shouted down by such comments and some go as far as claim I only do it to benefit in my own business.

So would you accept buying tainted eggs, tainted seeds, or anything else that was allowed to openly be contaminated with illegal chemicals, and passed on in this manner? It may not be in the open, but we certainly know its going on.

So here is a story of a package producer, only "doing what he's got to do", and then passing on bees that have been exposed and possible contaminated by illegal chemicals to his customers. And this is ok?

What an industry! ;)

[Barry]

So here is a story of a package producer, only "doing what he's got to do", and then passing on bees that have been exposed and possible contaminated by illegal chemicals to his customers.

Not to mention the legal chemicals they may use (Checkmite) that has been proven to have negative side effects on queens, shortening their life span.

[Swobee]

We're not really surprised at this, are we? I look at package bee business like a puppy mill- I don't really know where they come from and under what conditions they were brought to me, do you?

I admit to buying packages in the past, but those days are over. Our own splits, nucs from people we know and other such means are how we plan to expand from now on.

[Keith Jarrett]

lawsuits,liability,class actions the thread says......

most attorneys would laugh at this. Many bee operations are running on operating loans, a banana peel away from the tank.

[iddee]

Although I agree with your thoughts, chickens were a poor thing to use to compare with. If you ever worked in a chicken house or processing plant, you would leave sick the first day. An eight week old hot house chicken is larger than a 6 month old yard chicken.

So I guess the bees are just another step in our food process to come up lacking naturally and have to be spiked with whatever works.

Heck, cows are even being fed cow parts in the feed lots.

[BjornBee]

lawsuits,liability,class actions the thread says......

most attorneys would laugh at this. Many bee operations are running on operating loans, a banana peel away from the tank.


Now Keith, if your suggesting you have nothing worth losing, then I guess you speak for yourself. The title is nothing more than a quick "heading', and is a marketing option designed to get the reader to read the thread. (as if anything from me needed more ;) )

Whether anyone has anything to lose, I think it just goes to ask about the bigger picture of the liability, the responsibility, and whole idea unto itself of what type product is being presented to the beekeeping industry.

I could care less to debate such a trivial point of whether this attorney or that attorney would laugh at this or that.

I think you missed the point.

[Rivethead]

BjornBee - I'm new and here just trying to learn as much as possible. We purchased 15 acres of land and plan to build there in a couple years - including some hives - currently leaning toward TB and Warre.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your web site and the natural approach to beekeeping. Marked your site as a favorite - you'll likely have a new customer in the future.

[BjornBee]

BjornBee - I'm new and here just trying to learn as much as possible. We purchased 15 acres of land and plan to build there in a couple years - including some hives - currently leaning toward TB and Warre.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed your web site and the natural approach to beekeeping. Marked your site as a favorite - you'll likely have a new customer in the future.

Thank you. And most say I'm much nicer off beesource and in person...;)

[Putz]

It has always been "Buyer BeWare" since before there was sucha thing as money. Why expect it to be any different in the beekeeping industry in this age? :eek::(:mad:

[IndianaHoney]

I agree with that chemicals are a problem, but I don't think that the use of illegal chemicals is widespread. Sure there are always a few bad apples in the barrel, and to suggest that it doesn't happen is nieve. So my question is what is your proof that beekeepers are doing this enough to warrent a discussion that "suggest" that this is a major problem? I'm not saying that you're wrong, maybe you know something that I don't know.

You said yourself that these problems with queens are comming from legal chemicals such as Checkmite. Even Thymol is known to cause a queen to slow down or quit laying while the treatments are on the hive. In my oppinion this discussion is like calling attention to the one hundred or so people that die from snake bites each year, when thousands and thousands of people die in automobile accidents each year. We're all stuck in a self destructive cycle of using chemicals to keep bees alive, and we will continue to have that problem until we solve the mite issues. And until we solve that problem, we will continue to get bad apples that use illegal chemicals. The only way to solve that problem is to first solve the bigger problem. We first need to consentrate on being able to get rid of the legal chemicals, only then will the illegal chemicals disappear.

Edit: Correction, it was Berry who mention the checkmite issue with queen viablity.

[Romahawk]

We have bee producers using illegal chemicals, and then passing on their products such as nucs and even packages, to unknowing consumers who then possibly contaminate their hives, and food products.

How can any producer of any product in good conscience do this, have support within the public, and get away with such practices? Can you imagine buying chickens, food products, or about anything produced under these circumstances?

As I said on the other thread, I'm glad someone else acknowledges this stuff goes on. I'm usually shouted down by such comments and some go as far as claim I only do it to benefit in my own business.


Whether or not it would benefit your business is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me as a beekeeper is if the allegations you are making are true then why haven't you taken your proof to the proper authorities and helped them to shut such operations down. I'm sure beekeepers from all over would be grateful to you for helping them produce a safe and healthy product.

[honeyman46408]

Thank you. And most say I'm much nicer off beesource and in person...;)

YEP he B right :D

[BjornBee]

Whether or not it would benefit your business is of no concern to me. What is a concern to me as a beekeeper is if the allegations you are making are true then why haven't you taken your proof to the proper authorities and helped them to shut such operations down. I'm sure beekeepers from all over would be grateful to you for helping them produce a safe and healthy product.

The problem I see, is how do you even attempt to go about this? Some states have no state apiary inspection program, no pesticide officers willing to do a thing, some complacent in doing anything that would even remotely be seen as a threat on their jobs, and a whole jurisdiction and financial holes. I am more than willing to discuss this openly and hopefully have market forces dictate and change by consumers placing demands.

I like how some use the term "widespread" or in some way diminish the situation by suggesting it's not "common"....if you only knew! . The front page of beesource has an article, more and more are willing to discuss such matters as could be seen by the "open panel of professionals" at the Pennsylvania state bee association fall meeting last year where discussions quickly turned to details of how panel members use illegal chemicals, testing on CCD samples are being found with unimaginable levels of beekeeper induced chemicals, and then you have the personal discussions between beekeepers and posting of such details on sites like this. Its hard enough to get a glimpse into the back room dealings, but that door is slowly opening. I think when it fully opens, however that may happen, it will be eye-opening for some.

The thing I know, is the commercial grapevine is a long vine. And when one person "thinks" he has a good solution for the "problem of the day", it is passed from one to another. I know there are some who do not do this stuff. But in my discussions, many more do.

I could care less if one place does this or that if it was self contained. But it does when those same people are passing along stuff to beekeepers in nucs, packages, etc. I'm not out to be a crusader and go from state to state in some attempt of beating myself silly. I do think that open discussions of such practices and actually having the INDUSTRY acknowledge this stuff happens is something that many threw barriers to in the past. And I think it may be a problem that consumers and low-level change will be effective at impacting.

I bet some package and nuc producers, up till now, have thought little of what they are passing along. It's the "Do what I gotta do", to stay in business. But one of the good things I see coming out of CCD, is the "in your face FACTS" of damage that beekeepers themselves are doing to their hives by inducing illegal chemicals into the hives.

You can not have anyone get to a point of making changes in the market place until the consumer is educated as to what is happening, and the producer is aware of what the community expects, and possible ramifications of such actions...whether that be lost market share or some other item as being called out by state officials after testing or simply a few beekeepers getting damaged and publicly commenting.

Normally, I find when such matters only show a glimpse of the tip of the iceberg, much more is being hidden.

And as I said before, "know what your buying, ask questions, and know your producer".

For those who say, someone should just "out" what whatever one knows, is naive in my opinion. Up till now, even suggesting it was happening was ridiculed. And I see no support, from the industry or beekeeping community, towards anyone willing to attempt it. Why? Because anyone in the know, or is involved with research, a commercial beekeepers, or well connected....is already aware! But till now, nobody wants that boat rocked. But I think with enough discussions, enough people coming forward with stories, that maybe it will slowly change over time. Maybe not. But I'm not going to sit by and act as if it does not happen.

[BjornBee]

YEP he B right :D


B right is better than B left... ;)

[deknow]

...i really like your suggestion of a test (confining new packages, feeding pure sugar, and testing the wax they draw).

of course, one of the big problems is funding. the nhb has funded much of the work at penn state, testing wax, foundation, bees, brood, beebread, and trapped pollen...but not the honey (for obvious reasons, the nhb has a vested interest in the sales of honey that is contaminated). fwiw, the contamination of the trapped pollen may be due to "contaminated bees", but, imho, is more likely from contaminated nectar/honey that the bees bring from the hive to pack the pollen in the pollen baskets.

my recolection is that the wax tests at penn state cost about $200/sample....but who would be motivated to fund such tests? the local bee supply person who brings in packages (this would turn off customers)?, some "industry group" (this would make the industry look bad)? the beekeeper that has gotten off of using chemicals (many of us don't buy packages)? ...i think it would have to be the individual beekeeper who buys packages..but then again, most of them use at least some of the legal chemicals.

in thinking on how we started our packages last year, i think we got lucky. we started on 5 frames of hsc, and fed with baggie feeders and shims. this meant that in the first month or so, aside from the small amount of wax depositied on the hsc, all the wax drawn by the bees was "burr comb" between the top bars and to the top cover (the depth of the feeding shim). any contaminants purged in this wax was removed when we scraped the burr comb (which we did repeatedly to encourage the queen to lay in the hsc). after this, we went with all foundationless...so, the only wax that would be contaminated at this point (when these hives are now 3-6 deeps) is the small amount put on the hsc. this was not an ideal way to do things from many persectives (as there was a lot of "wasted wax" between the top bars and the top, and feeding involved shaking the cluster off the top cover, including the queen)...but in the end, if toxins (natural, unnatural, legal, illegal) are purged in the wax, then i think we did ok.

deknow

[Barry]

Many bee operations are running on operating loans, a banana peel away from the tank.

Does this justify the misuse of chemicals, in your opinion?

[deknow]

the use of illegal treatments is not rare...do a search here and on bee-l on "shop rag treatments"....no one admits to using them themselves, but lots of reporting that others are.

deknow

[BjornBee]

deknow, I'll agree with the pollen and what the bees are adding to it. But we really have no idea of the chemicals levels that bees carry long-term internally. We do know, that exposure alone, can effect immune systems, shorten a queens longevity, lessen viability, and a host of other things. Not wanting to discuss the finer points of each item, the broader point is the known, acceptance by some, and the practice, of bee producers exposing bees to illegal chemicals, then passing them off as healthy bees. Which I have my doubts as to how healthy they actually are.

Kim Flottum in BC Aug 08 hit it on the head,.... On page 68:

(In discussing the various groups convinced of this chemical or that chemical as to whether it's contribution to CCD)

He ends by saying.....

"I don't care, actually, if they or aren't. They (pesticides) are absolutely, cuasing problems, whether related to, affecting, or cuasing CCD or not. Pesticides kill bees, and there are way, way too many pesticides being found in beehives....way, way, too many."

To me, this is a step in the right direction and by having people like Kim mention it, more will read and start connecting the dots. I know what I saw, what I hear, etc. Kim, got NONE of his information from me to come to such conclusions. So there are others seeing it also. It is not isolated incidents.

[irwin harlton]

You said "Even Thymol is known to cause a queen to slow down or quit laying while the treatments are on the hive. " Can you substanuate this claim with some study or proof?

[Joseph Clemens]

As most of us are aware, everything in our world is composed of chemical elements and compounds of those elements in varying combinations and complexities, most are natural, but an increasing number are human-engineered chemical compounds purported to be designed and created, for instance, to "increase production" and "make our lives better". Certainly many of these chemical compounds seem to fit some of their hype, including some in the classes of pesticides. Supra-natural though they are, they have often presented undesirable challenges that many of us would rather not have to deal with.

I am not so conservative as to be completely - "anti-chemical pesticides", for instance, I have recently tried a little B401 for wax moth control, and it seems to work very well, with no obvious side-effects. But for most of my beekeeping history I have entirely avoided the use of all other pesticides, even those specifically designated for use with honey bees. This focus is simply because so many of the products of the beehive are consumed directly by humans, including myself, and I don't want to eat pesticide contaminated honey, nor do I want to give such honey to others. I certainly cannot keep my bees from going out to forage and bringing back undesirable chemicals with the water, nectar, pollen, and propolis they collect while foraging, but I can try to reduce their level of undesirable chemical contamination by avoiding intentionally introducing any myself.
- - - -
Once you begin to use pesticides to maintain, "healthy" colonies. How do you then determine when you can stop using those pesticides and still have "healthy" colonies? My contention is that pesticides are like morphine; when your injury is causing pain, you take the morphine to reduce or eliminate the pain, but by the time the injury has healed you now need the morphine to feel normal, so you keep taking it even though the reason you started taking it is no longer valid, but because if you stopped taking it, it would hurt even worse than the initial injury did. With Varroa destructor you use miticides because you believe you will lose your colonies if you don't, but once you start using the chemical pesticides you are hooked and continue to use them because you believe you will lose your colonies if you don't. What if, like me, you were willing to lose some bees, rather than introduce unwanted poisonous chemicals into your beehives. And then, like me, you discovered that none of your colonies died. None died from mites or any other cause (none died). It's been more than ten years now living with Varroa destructor and whatever other pests/diseases happen to have infected my hives. I have had hives become inexplicably queenless, and even a few laying worker hives, but I have not had any hive die-out. Initially I was putting up with whatever local genetics my virgins were picking up on their mating flights and some of them were quite feisty and most were almost unmanageably nervous and runny. I have since requeened so they are nearly all Cordovan Italian from Koehnen's, yet they are just as vigorous and productive as my mutts were, yes, even more vigorous and productive - all without any natural or man-made treatments.

[Keith Jarrett]

Does this justify the misuse of chemicals, in your opinion?

No, certainly not.

I think some here beleive that if it's legal it's safe & if it's not register it's unsafe.

That thinking is dreaming.

[Tom G. Laury]

Barry how would you define " Misuse of chemicals "?

[Barry]

I'd start with any use of a chemical that is not in accordance with the label. That covers when it's applied, how often it's applied, and how it's applied.

I know enough people around the commercial industry to know what goes on in the area of treating bees. When beekeepers are "a banana peel away from the tank", desperate measures are taken and if a little bit is good, then a bit more is even better.

The problem isn't "legal" or "registration", it's the beekeeper and what he does with these chemicals.

[Keith Jarrett]

it's the beekeeper .

I second that!

[Barry]

"The fraternity of beekeepers share an unspoken understanding. Mite treatments only work for a while before the mites reproduce resistant strains, and render the chemicals useless. Eischen and his researchers are busy trying to keep ahead of the cycle, but in the field, the reality is beekeepers want something that works immediately, at the height of a mite infestation. Almost in code, information about illegal treatments is passed, beekeeper to beekeeper. Some rely on hand-mixed chemical concoctions; combinations of old remedies in new concentrations and experimental applications of Mavrik, an unlicensed treatment of fluvalinate."

http://www.beesource.com/pov/traynor/traynor14oct07.htm

[IndianaHoney]

You said "Even Thymol is known to cause a queen to slow down or quit laying while the treatments are on the hive. " Can you substanuate this claim with some study or proof?

Yes, I noticed this in my own hives last fall, and again this spring. Both times the amount eggs was substantially reduced in my hives. I had one hive that stopped laying all together durring the treatment, then started up again after the treatment was gone. This has also been noted by many other beekeepers, and is admitted by the manufacturer.

http://www.dadant.com/Apiguard-FAQs.htm Look at FAQ # 10. This same faq is on the manufacturer's website.

[irwin harlton]

I was feeding dissolved thymol crystals in my syrup, as much as 3/4 gram per gallon, didn't notice any reduction in egg laying or brood production, but wasn't really looking for it .It has been such a cool wet
spring and summer, bees didn't really build up till july , lots of population now and we have hot weather but days are getting shorter
You were refering to thymol been used in apivar, a mite treatment?

[irwin harlton]

that should be apiguard not apivar