Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Dingler View Post
    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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Default

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR, USA
    Posts
    144

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,743

    Default

    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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR, USA
    Posts
    144

    Default

    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

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,743

    Default

    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

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,743

    Default

    ...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

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Minerva, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    ...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.

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