Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    . . .but I also believe that if the issue wasn't important to you, you wouldn't be expressing your views and knowlege. I could be wrong. Just an assumption. -hummingberd
    Before anyone gets the wrong idea here, I am not advocating heavy use of pesticides. The research I'm working on is funded by farmers' groups and cooperatives, not seed or chemical companies. (Seed and chemical companies do contribute some of their products, but some of their products are purchased through the same outlets that everyone else uses as a control -- you know, so the "freebies" aren't really super formulations just to show how effective their products are.)

    Really, the reason I've posted so often against the idea that pesticides are to blame is that I'm firmly convinced pesticides are NOT to blame for CCD. I've seen plenty of pesticide poisonings of bees, including poisonings by imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids, and the evidence I'm seen doesn't match at all the descriptions of CCD.

    I suspect CCD is a combination of factors, all coinciding occasionally to create the losses we call "CCD." Environmental stress, pathogens (new or the same ol' ones), perhaps malnutrition (which may be caused by environmental stress), parasites, etc.

    I wish the cause of CCD was something as simple as "poisoning by neonicotinoids." I doubt it's simple at all. The fact the researchers looking into CCD haven't been able to pinpoint a cause yet suggests the cause isn't simple at all.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Wheatfield, IN
    Posts
    2,069

    Default

    I'm firmly convinced pesticides are NOT to blame for CCD.

    I'm with Keick on this one. Pesticide wouldn't explain why a whole yard succumbs and another beeyard 100yds away doesn't demostrate any symptoms. I can see one hive being affected by pesticide application to a particular crop and the one next to it not be affected due to primary foraging on different crops. I find it difficult to believe that the CCD caused by pesticides would affect whole yards but nothing seen in colonies as close as 100-300 yrds away.

    Just doesn't fit the profile in my view.
    Dan Williamson
    B&C Honey Farm http://www.flickr.com/photos/9848229@N05/

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Erin, NY /Florence SC
    Posts
    3,361

    Default

    I may be completely wrong, so might everyone else at this point but I am looking at CCD as a row of domino's which include all the possible disease and toxin vectors which can diminish any organism (hive) to the point of succumbing to any or many of the vectors. Say for example you have 2 yards of a 100 colonies a mile apart. Yard one is run by a beekeeper with 10 yr old combs harboring years of pesticide residues, higher mite counts and the bees are moved often (stressed) at a high level. The queens in this operation arrive from the queen breeder carrying DWV or any other number of virus threats to honey bees. 11 of the hives in this yard are new equipment with new comb and 1st. year queens for whatever reason. Beekeeper #1 feeds HFCS Other wise beekeeper 1 uses reasonable controls for mites and disease and runs a qood operation.

    Beekeeper number 2 rotates his combs so the internal pesticide vector is eliminated and his bees make less or shorter trips (less stress) than beekeeper #1. Beekeeper #2 orders his bees from a supplier who does not have the virus carrying queens delivered and the resulting stock is stronger. #2 feeds sucrose and since his bees are moved less have more honey and less exposure to residual pesticides in commerical or adjoining commerical apple, blueberry or other pollinated crops.

    Beekeeper 1 finds 60 hives dead, 29 survive and are nursed back to health, 11come through well, Beekeeper #2 suffers a loss of 25 hives and has a 1/2 dozen week hives and the balance of hives do very well.

    Without pointing to any particular vector, both operations, a mile apart are exposed to widely different positive and negative influences. If we are talking about a pathogen that both yards are exposed to, Beekeeper #2's hives are a stronger "organism" and able to overcome the falling dominoes, at least for this round. If it is a combination of non-pathogenic vectors, #2 is still in the drivers seat, at least for this round. #1 due several possible "immune system" weakeners will succumb to the falling dominoes as more are tipped to start.

    Like a chess board we can move the many, many possible weakening vectors between the operations until the result is different. I'm less suprised about 2 yards a mile apart having different responses to CCD than I am about the inability to pinpoint anything.

    Despite this there is still too much unknown here. I have and will continue to keep my yards as isolated as possible, both from other beekeepers and from each other, Dick Marrons article concludes that whatever is going on is communicable. Like small pox and other problems (even black plague) communicable doesn't necessarily mean fatal.

    If this is a cyclical event, which it appears to be, we may be worrying for now about nothing. At the very least with amount we've seen it needs to be a wake up call.
    Last edited by Joel; 04-11-2007 at 05:14 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arundel, Maine USA
    Posts
    1,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieck View Post
    Before anyone gets the wrong idea here, I am not advocating heavy use of pesticides.
    I didn't think you were Kieck. I just think your input is valuable. As of course is everyone's You are qualified to talk about the numbers, and data because you research the stuff. I get the feeling you might think I was trying to discredit you because of our previous debate on another thread. Quite the contrary. If someone quite adverse to the use of pesticides (such as myself) can "listen" to what you have to "say" (because I have faith in your knowlege) perhaps others could bnefit in this way as well! I appreciate you posting on the issues because it helps me educate myself.


  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sparta, Tennessee
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BjornBee View Post
    Jeff,
    there are many including apples, peaches, vinecrops such as pumpkins, etc. By pesticide consultant estimates I have talked too, as much as 80 to 90% of corn now planted is seed pretreated with one form or another of a neonicotinoid based pesticide.
    BjornBee, wow, Apples are big here, and so is corn. Thanks for sharing. I just wonder how I could ever influence the farmers to use something else that wasn't so devestating on the honeybees. The next question would be, what would you tell them to use as an alternative....

    I am going to go back and read all the posts on this topic...maybe this has been discussed...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Fredericksburg, Va
    Posts
    793

    Default

    Paranoid....

    It is only paranoid if the belief is not true. They may really be out to get us.
    Bee all you can Bee!
    http://www.hamiltonapiary.net

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Who may be out to get us? The growers? The chemical companies? The free market that places a premium on "perfect" produce?

    Seriously, guys, I think trying to pin the blame for CCD on chemicals is unrealistic. Too little evidence points to pesticides of any sort.

    Personally (sorry if I offend some of you), I think the effort to blame neonicotinoids or other pesticides for CCD is simply an attempt to move the blame. We've brought parasites and diseases into this country from all over the world while we've been importing bees from other countries. We move bees all around the country for pollination; the movement concentrates bees, making spread of diseases and parasites more likely and more rapid. We rely on a fairly limited number of suppliers to produce most of the packages and queens in this country. Then we run into poor conditions in some years for bees, and our management practices don't do so well when conditions aren't good.

    But blaming pesticides are easier than trying to improve the ways we manage and keep bees.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Manitoba Canada
    Posts
    5,747

    Default

    >>conditions in some years for bees, and our management practices don't do so well when conditions aren't good.

    Might just be the root of the CCD problem,
    Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
    www.stepplerfarms.com

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Lancaster, Ky. / Frostproof Fl.
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Joel,

    I hope you like crow because in the future I believe you will have feathers sticking out of your mouth! lol

    One reason that there could be a differance in the death of hives fairly close is it seems that alot of colonies died in the fall when they were consuming pollen stored during the summer.....from differant areas. David Hackenburg had colonies collapse in Feb after a cold snap when bees were not flying and using stored pollen. And I can guarantee that he is a good beekeeper......very few better! His mite counts were at 1 or none on sugar rolls. I personally had hives colllapse from Tuesday to Friday with perfect brood patterns, no mites(I'm surethere was one somewhere but extremely low counts). Tuesday I got 3-4 frame nuces(in Dec) and on Friday i got 5 bees and a queen! Mark my word when it all comes out.......neonicotineoids !!!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Danbury,Ct. USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Default

    Suttonbeeman,
    I may be wrong but I'm of the opinion that bees only use pollen to raise brood with. If that is true, the brood would die first...not the older bees. That's just the opposite of what happens.

    dickm

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Mark my word when it all comes out.......neonicotineoids !!! -Suttonbeeman
    What convinces you that neonicotinoids are the cause of CCD?

    Do you have any explanation for why CCD wasn't reported in 2005, or 2004, or 2003, when use of neonicotinoids was generally the same as it was in 2006?

    Do you believe CCD will be a serious problem again in 2007? Keep in mind that the use of neonicotinoids is not decreasing in 2007 -- again, it's about the same as in 2006.

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieck View Post
    What convinces you that neonicotinoids are the cause of CCD?

    Do you have any explanation for why CCD wasn't reported in 2005, or 2004, or 2003, when use of neonicotinoids was generally the same as it was in 2006?

    Do you believe CCD will be a serious problem again in 2007? Keep in mind that the use of neonicotinoids is not decreasing in 2007 -- again, it's about the same as in 2006.
    Kieck, I've been reading a bit here. Where are your sources? Where is the proof that "use of neonicotinoids was generally the same as it was in 2006"?

    Forgive me if you already posted your sources.

    Joel

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Don't know that I can offer "proof." The numbers I've used as the basis of my statements come from reports of sales of pesticides in this country. While some stockpiling of chemicals occurs (in case the chemicals are pulled off the martket by, say, the EPA, and only existing stocks can still be used), most of the pesticides purchased are used fairly quickly.

    Based on the numbers, imidacloprid (one of the neonicotinoids -- in fact, the one catching most of the blame) production and sales peaked in 2003 and has been declining since then.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Columbia, PA, USA
    Posts
    22

    Default

    I am a relatively new hobby beekeeper. This is my first post on this forum. Just found you guys a week ago. Great site, BTW.

    I just wanted to chime in here since I have an environmental science background. Although I have no specific information pertaining to the pesticide in question, it reminds me of the DDT era in this country, and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I can remember DDT being touted as the best thing since sliced bread. Heck you could bath in the stuff and dust all your livestock to kill parasites with no ill effects. Nobody thought to look at any environmental effects until too late.

    Sound familiar? Deja Vu?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads