Fluvalinate, Cumaphos, and Foundation

[deknow]

there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive.

...then how does it get in the brood, bee bread, and trapped pollen? seriously, if the trapped pollen is showing fluvalinate and cumaphos even before it enters the hive (presumably through contact with the bees), how can the honey _not_ be contaminated?

i've also seen studies that look at colored sugar water and colored wax, and shows that even after capping and drawing, these materials get moved throughout the hive. of course, it's a much more direct test to actually test the honey then to measure contamination in wax, bee bread, pollen, and brood and speculate about what might be in the honey....but no one wants to do the tests...can you guess why?

the untold story in that video is that the feedlot beeks have been dumping jug mixes of fluvalinate and comouphos into there hives for over a decade or more. some Gomers even use multiple treatments in fall or over the course of a season.
these chronic off label abusers are a far cry from a hobbyist that used Apistan or checkmite a few times.

i'm not sure this is so untold...maryann alluded to this kind of thing in her talk. perhaps we are looking at "the worst of the worst" here....but they sell their honey and wax somewhere...and americans are buying the stuff. it's easy to get mad at china for contaminated pet food and lead paint in childrens toys, how will american consumers react when these "natural, domestic products" are found to be contaminated?

the big honey packers test honey every day and have internal specs for the residues that are below EPA values (many have lowered them recently or they would run out of honey). they even have specs for Amitraz which is not labeled for use in bees but is a common material used by the feedlot crowd. interestingly the EPA has a spec for Amitraz in honey. i wonder why?

what do i know? i've never been around big honey packers...and i hope to keep it that way. btw, i thought you said, "there is data in research papers that suggest that honey in supers and super comb wax does not pick up much if any detectable traces of contamination in brood comb. the residues are chemically locked up in the comb not wandering molecules in the hive."? so where does the contamination come from if not from the wax? is it better contamination if it comes from a source other than wax?

while brood comb is undoubtedly contaminated in most of the hives in our fine country. the levels are far more elevated then even the worst honey a packer might find.

is this supposed to be reassuring? i'm curious how you have knowledge of "contamination levels in brood comb from most of the hives in this country", and "the worst honey a packer might find"? do you really have enough data to know this, or is it speculation on your part?

we all have to realize that science has intruments that have magnitudes of resolution lower then 10 years ago.
we live in a world where we inhale or absorbed chems all of the time. chem prescence is no big deal sometimes - the question is what levels.

yes, that is the question

i highly doubt we will find the levels in foundation to be of concern other then an indicator of trends and whats wrong with American beekeeping.
to imply there is a health hazard to bees and humans I think is stretching it.

perhaps for those that use the chems that are found in foundation anyways, it's not a big deal. for those of us who are not using treatments however, any level is problematic. as far as health hazards go, it would be foolish to ignore fluvalinate and cumaphos (and probably a host of other chems) as possible contributors to whatever "CCD" is. note that it isn't just me "implying"...the conclusion of the video was a recomendation to stop using fluvalinate and cumaphos.

...but in the end, we will have to wait and see the published data to have a better idea what was found.

deknow

[Jim Fischer]

The claimed change in formulation to fluvalinate is what concerns me.

MaryAnn also spoke in CA at the combined ABF/AHPA meeting, and
I think that the most significant item raised is the claim that the
new formulation is much more toxic.

Once again, I don't see this as the "common factor" and proximate
cause of CCD, since something as simple as miticide use certainly has
been tracked down and found to not correlate to outbreaks of CCD.

But it is a sobering concern, both from the point of view of someone
trying to keep insects alive, and from the point of view of someone
trying to sell a food product.

[aszalan]

studies have been conducted on coumaphos residues

Residue distribution of the acaricide coumaphos in honey following application of a new slow-release formulation
Emmanuel Karazafiris , Chrysoula Tananaki , Urania Menkissoglu-Spiroudi , Andreas Thrasyvoulou . Pest Manag Sci 64:165–171 (2007)

ABSTRACT
Acaricide used in beehives for the control of varroa often leaves residues in bee products. The behaviour and distribution of the acaricide coumaphos in honey following the application of a new slow-release strip formulation (CheckMite+) was assessed. The bee colonies were allowed to build new combs without foundation, and two strips were hung in the brood chamber of each colony for a period of 42 days. The distribution of coumaphos residues in honey in relation to the position of the frame and the duration of treatment was examined by collecting samples from each comb at various time intervals up to 145 days after treatment. In the brood chamber, coumaphos was incorporated into honey from the first day of application, and residues accumulated mainly in combs placed next to strips. In the adjacent combs, residues remained at low concentrations with slight variations. In the honey chamber, residue concentrations on the day of strip removal ranged between 0.006 and 0.020 mg kg-1, while 79 days after application the concentration of coumaphos residues was below 0.020 mg kg-1. Residues above the EC fixed maximum residue limit (MRL) of 0.1 mg kg-1 were measured only in brood chamber honey obtained from those combs placed next to strips. In these samples, 0.060-0.111 mg kg-1 of coumaphos was detected up to 103 days after strip removal. Coumaphos residues in honey extracted from combs that were placed at the edge of the brood chamber were found below the MRL value, even during the 42 day period of CheckMite+ strip treatment.

and on fluvalinate residues in honey and beeswax

Fluvalinate Residues in Honey and Beeswax after Different Colony Treatments
A. D. Tsigouri,1 U. Menkissoglu-Spiroudi,2 A. Thrasyvoulou,3 Gr. Diamantidis4Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (2004) 72:975–982

fluvalinate residues in the control hives honey averaged 0.5 ug/kg while the hives with fluvalinate treatment (apistan) did not exceed 6.1 ug/kg. fluvalinate residues in brood comb ranged from 0.8 to 12.7 mg/kg.

[deknow]

mmm, these are studies done using "proper use of approved forumlations of approved treatments". this is very different from testing honey from real world operations that may or may not be using unapproved treatments/formulations.

deknow

[aszalan]

Given the mode of action of fluvalinate (pyrethroid) and coumaphos (organophosphate) I dont think that they are a factor in CCD. Plus several sublethal studies have shown that acute levels of coumaphos have only a slight effect on honey bee behavior. for example

Effects of Acute Sublethal Exposure to Coumaphos or Diazinon on Acquisition and Discrimination of Odor Stimuli in the Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
Authors: Weick, Jason; Thorn, Robert S.
Source: Journal of Economic Entomology, Volume 95, Number 2, April 2002 , pp. 227-236(10)

Abstract:
Two organophosphate compounds, coumaphos and diazinon, were examined for effects of sublethal exposure on odor learning and generalization in honey bees, Apis mellifera L. Using proboscis extension response training as a measure of odor learning and discrimination, a series of two experiments tested whether these compounds would inhibit bees from learning a new odor or discriminating between different odors. Bees were exposed to coumaphos or diazinon in acetone applied to the thorax, or to coumaphos or diazinon in hexane injected intracranially. At no dose tested or exposure method used was coumaphos shown to inhibit acquisition of a novel odor stimulus, although it was shown to slightly reduce discriminatory ability when given by intracranial injection. Diazinon had effects on odor learning at several small doses, and a small injected dose was shown to significantly inhibit learning of an odor stimulus paired with a sucrose reward. When bee head acetylcholineasterase activity was measured after dermal applications of both pesticides, only the higher doses of diazinon showed reduced activity, indicating that externally-applied coumaphos shows no significant effect on bee brain acetylcholinesterase activity. These data suggest that acute application of coumaphos has only slight nonlethal effects upon the behavior of honey bees and should have little effect upon bee tasks that involve odor learning.

However, the sublethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides, may be a factor in CCD
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/requiemForTheHoneybee.php

[deknow]

aszalan,
do you know the original use of fluvalinate wrt bees (before beekeepers started putting it in the hive)?

it was used as a memory retardent...as a pre-spray in the field in order to keep the bees from coming back to forage (so that the really toxic stuff could be sprayed without killing foraging bees).

perhaps it's an overly simplistic "analysis", but doesn't this resemble some of the ccd symptoms? ..bees flying away from the hive and not returning? forgetting where they live?

also, the stacking of different miticides, pesticides, herbacides, fungicides can increase toxicity a thousandfold.

i'm certainly not convinced that fluvalinate and/or cumaphos are a factor in ccd (whatever that is). making clean and safe food is importnat, however...as is the long term health of our bee population.

i'm not sure how beekeepers will be able to influence farmers, businesses, homeowners, governments, etc to reduce their pesticide usage without cleaning up their own act first.

deknow

[deknow]

...here is some other interesting data posted to bee-l last july:

-- Jerry Bromenshenk <BeeResearch@AOL.COM> wrote:
In response to Waldemar's questions: The diversity of pesticide residues has
been about the same. The types of chemicals change a bit with the years and regions. We still see residues of DDT, DDD, and DDE, although these are
very slowly dropping off.

A few weeks ago, I sent the following to our colleagues on the CCD Working
Group:


CCD Working Group: I managed to free up a few minutes and looked up some of our previous pesticide work, as well as those of some of our colleagues.

We collected hundreds of bee and pollen samples at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and at off-site areas north of Baltimore in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

We found 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'DDE, 4,4'-DDD, aldrin, gamma-chlorodane dieldrin,
alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), endosulfan sulfate, endrin, endrin aldehyde, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, and various PCBs (aroclor 1260, 1248, 1254).

I should note: Anderson, J.F.; Wojtas, M.A. (1986) also found PCBs in bees,
as well as lots of other pesticides in samples from Connecticut counties.

More often than not, in the Aberdeen/Baltimore area, we found detectable
levels of pesticides in most bee samples, and sometimes in pollen. Heptachlor
was seen in both bees and pollen and was often the highest concentration
(ug/kg dry weight). 299+ 360. PCB concentrations often exceeded those of
pesticides. In fact, over the last 20 years, we have been unable to find a bee
sample that does not contain readily detectable levels of PCBs. Not
surprisingly, DDT and its breakdown products remain readily detectable in many soils.

In Europe, the Italians have conducted some long-term and wide area sampling for pesticides. Porrini et al., in a four-year pesticide monitoring study (1983-86), found 70.8% of the samples tested positive for Dithiocarbamates, 15.3% for dimethoate, 14.7% for parathion, 11.9% for azinphos-methyl, 11% for carbaryl, 10.4% for methyl parathion, 7.2% for endosulfan, 7.2% for omethoate, and 2.4% for methamidophos. The Italians noted that the dithocarbamates, used as fungicides, are considered to be of low toxicity to bees, however, they were the most widespread chemicals in dead bees in cultivated fields.

In recent litigation concerning pesticides and bees in the U.S., for which
we consulted to several different beekeepers, sevin xlr and furadan were
allegedly involved in several severe bee kills. The residue levels that we've
seen would indicate poisoning events by these chemicals in the cases that we saw. Finally, we've had some recent correspondence with USGS that indicates that pyrethroid usage is on the increase in California, and is showing up in more and more water samples.

Finally, whereas pesticide residues are common in bees, our work has shown
that other environmental chemicals occur in bee colonies, sometimes at toxic
levels. For example, heavy metals and fluoride in industrial regions. Among
the volatile and semi-volatile organics, chemicals like benzene and styrene
stand out in terms of concentrations and/or prevalence.

We look forward to learning how the PSU/USDA results compare with these
studies.

Jerry

[Stevedore]

...the data i have access to is all in the video provided. i encourage you to watch it.

deknow

Maryann Frazier also later published her findings in American Bee Journal:

http://beediary.files.wordpress.com/...une08abj-1.pdf

Conclusions
Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate
(up to 204 ppm) at high frequencies have
been detected in brood nest wax, and
pollen (bee bread). Changes in the formulation
of fluvalinate resulting in a significant
increase in toxicity to honey bees,
makes this a serious concern. In addition,
coumaphos, and numerous environmental
insecticides, along with fungicides and
herbicides have also been widely detected
in hive matrices. The large numbers and
multiple kinds of pesticides that have been
found could result in potentially toxic
interactions for which there are no scientific
studies to date. Europe researchers have
found similar pesticides and frequencies in
hive matrices and express similar concerns
(Martel et al. 2007). These chronic levels
of pesticides in pollen and wax at potentially
acute levels need to be further investigated
with regard to their potential interactions
with other stressors (e.g. IAPV)
and their role in CCD. It is anticipated that
additional pesticide analyses of brood,
adult bees and nectar samples will provide
valuable insights into recent declines in
honey bee health. Figure 4 summarizes our
findings and highlights our major concerns
regarding the unknown consequences for
honey bee health. A more detailed report
on this work is currently being prepared
for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal.