Just read "A Spring without Bees"

**BeeCurious** · 08-21-2008, 10:46 AM

I never read Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" but it seems that "A Spring without Bees: How Colony Collapse Disorder Has Endangered Our Food Supply" is the 2008 version of that famous book.

There is a lot of background on the use/restrictions of neonicotinoids (Gaucho) in France and why it will be difficult to ban the chemicals in the U.S. The French beekeepers are currently battling the use of another Bayer product "Cruiser"...

One chapter is more of an advertisement for "HONEY-B-HEALTHY".

I enjoyed most of the book but there is something to be disliked by all...

Ask your library to get this book...

http://www.amazon.com/Spring-without...9332998&sr=1-1

**AstroBee** · 08-21-2008, 12:23 PM

I just looked at the front flap and was very surprised to read the author rather definitely states that CCD results from imidacloprid. I haven't been tracking CCD developments that closely nor have I read the book, but my understanding was that nothing has been confirmed as "THE" cause of CCD.

**Bud Dingler** · 08-21-2008, 12:59 PM

full of speculation - short on science.

butt wipe for the tree huggers....

Imid is a smoke screen for the contaminators who use shop rags and just about any chem they think will kill a mite.

While most of the book is tabloid trash here is some real science that might partially explain why bees are dying.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...icide_buildup/

of course this ANSWER is not politically popular amongst beekeepers.

**BeeCurious** · 08-22-2008, 01:21 PM

Has anyone else read this book?

**Tia** · 08-23-2008, 05:50 AM

Thanks, Bud Dingler, for listing that site. Everyone should know that we are poisoning our own hives. I found this fact out at the last state convention and was shocked. I am a chemical free beekeeper; therefore, I was very upset to find out that my foundation is full of chemicals! Two years ago I started fooling around with foundationless frames. Now I think I'm going in that direction 100%.

**Eaglerock** · 08-23-2008, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Bud Dingler

Imid is a smoke screen for the contaminators who use shop rags and just about any chem they think will kill a mite.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...icide_buildup/

of course this ANSWER is not politically popular amongst beekeepers.

My Nephew is one of the ones working on this at Penn State. From what I gather someone is keeping this under raps either until they find something else to use or something. They really can’t come out and say it is the problem, however, they are sure that it is. Anyways, the pesticide used to kill and control bugs are getting on the honeybee. This pesticide makes the bee disoriented and in doing this, makes her unable to return to the hive.

Soon all that is left is young bees in the hive waiting for food to produce wax. – My thoughts.
Nevertheless, if they would go out looking for food they too would not make it back to the hive… No food no queen, no bees…

**BeeCurious** · 08-23-2008, 09:47 AM

Recent research has indicated that Coumaphos and other mite treatments are effecting colony health and queen viability. Other research done in Europe seems to show that neonicotinoids are more than a smoke screen.

For example in Germany the use of the pesticide "Cruiser" ( a neonicotinoid ) was suspended this past May. http://www.bvl.bund.de/cln_007/nn_49...html__nnn=true

Maryann Frazier's work at Penn State shows that chemicals are present in hives.

Her work was not a study of sublethal effects of neonicotinoids.

**BeeCurious** · 08-23-2008, 10:09 AM

With Penn State and Bayer sharing "a long collaborative history, with Bayer’s support to the University totaling more than $2.2 million over the past two decades, plus more than $1 million in research grants. Bayer employs more than 185 alumni." it's not likely that Penn State would perform any research that is not in their interest. ($)

**BeeCurious** · 08-27-2008, 07:04 AM

I came across the following review for "A Spring Without Bees"

http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2008...ur-Food-Supply

**John Gesner** · 08-27-2008, 07:22 AM

Looks like it could be a good read...

Like the review suggests, there's a lot of little things we could do that, if put all together, would probably make a big difference in our ecosystem. I frequently have conversations with friends/acquaintances about "treatment-free lawns". But until more people change their minds about what a "good" lawn is, I'll keep having unproductive conversations with these folks.

**Eaglerock** · 08-27-2008, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Tia

I was very upset to find out that my foundation is full of chemicals! .

I never knew this. But that is why I am against Plastic frames. But my foundation? DO tell... also, why is it not wax. Is the wax starters for comb foundation wax?

**John Gesner** · 08-27-2008, 07:52 AM

I'm not sure why you'd be against plastic frames based on this. The problem with WAX is that it's a sponge for chemicals. Since foundation is made from recycled bees wax, it's not surprising to me that traces of all kinds of chemicals show up in testing. Afterall, the bulk of the wax comes from your larger bee operations that employ a variety of pest control strategies...

**Eaglerock** · 08-27-2008, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by John Gesner

I'm not sure why you'd be against plastic frames based on this. ...

I never based it on this. I like natural. Wood... plastic is a chemically made unit.

**shawnwri** · 08-27-2008, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by BeeCurious

With Penn State and Bayer sharing "a long collaborative history, with Bayer’s support to the University totaling more than $2.2 million over the past two decades, plus more than $1 million in research grants. Bayer employs more than 185 alumni." it's not likely that Penn State would perform any research that is not in their interest. ($)

So you believe that the Land Grant Institution is a prostituting itself for the chemical industry? Must be you haven't worked for either.

While their is the rare scientist that will sell themselves, the vast majority have worked too hard for too long to sell their reputations so that their employer could benefit. The researcher doesn't get a cut of the money that comes in, and a significant portion of the money the money that comes in goes to the university for "Facility and Adminstration" costs that can be as high as 49% leaving the researcher with 51%.

**deknow** · 08-27-2008, 08:37 AM

shawnwri,

you should note that (at least as of march), the study at penn state was largely funded by the nhb....coincidentally, the study tested bees, brood, comb, foundation, stored pollen, and trapped pollen.....but not honey. this may not be "prostituting", but it does compromise the value and scope of the study significantly.

deknow

**Bud Dingler** · 08-27-2008, 12:24 PM

Imid and the Neonics have been around almost as long as Apistan and Checkmite.

We have PLENTY of hard evidence on the beekeeper applied chems damaging bees and contaminating combs. Still we have little to no EVIDENCE on Bayer, just hype and speculation. That book offers no new EVIDENCE.

We would see regional problems if Bayer was at fault but we do not.

The Penn State data shows no Bayer ag chem residues in the list of 170 some odd chems!!!!

What's ironic is Checkmite is made by Bayer!!!!!!

The Germany incident this spring has nothing to do really with the danger of neonics used properly and affecting bees in pollen and nectar. Read more deeply online and here and you will find that the incident had to do with missapplied chem's as a seed coating that came off during planting and killed some bees. THe press and chat groups like this repeatedly keep drawing inaccurate conclusions on the neonics and what happened in Germany.

The Bayer issue that has no EVIDENCE is does the residues of neonics in plants present a problem for bees. After repeated studies around the world we still have NOTHING. But Penn State has a smoking gun and and the gun holder is the beekeeper him/her self. Sad but true and unpopular as hell.

Here's a good question: Why do we still have Section 18 emergency labels for Checkmite and Apistan? I thought we had a crisis and emergency of dead bees? Why not delist and make Checkmite and Apistan illegal in the USA? We have the data that shows sterile drones and queens reproduction is harmed and that these chems are are at almost LD50 levels in comb in the penn state data? What is the problem here folks? Wake Up!!!

Meanwhile ABF is part of the smoke screen ragging on the dead Bayer horse while their members keep killing their own bees with shop rags soaked in Maverik or Tactic or whatever.........

We have met the enemy and its some guy with a veil...........

It get worse as Souix Bee and other big packers have quietly increased their own internal specs for these self applied chems. These internal specs are still below EPA specs for safe consumption. They had to is they wanted to continue buying US honey!

The system is broken and we are side tracked by tabloid trash like this book and ABF with their Bayer smokescreen. The dead hives will keep piling up as the core problems are not even on the table yet.

**deknow** · 08-27-2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bud Dingler

The Penn State data shows no Bayer ag chem residues in the list of 170 some odd chems!!!!

my recolection from the maryanne frazier video is that they _did_ find imidacloprid in hives that were in citrus groves being treated for citrus greening. is that not a bayer chem found in hives?

deknow

**Bodo** · 08-27-2008, 12:41 PM

Remember, it's easier to place blame than to look for the real cause. Minds are made up and no science is going to convience these people.

Meanwhile the real cause (whatever is may be) continues unchecked.