Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

R U ready to get mad?

19K views 78 replies 27 participants last post by  Joseph Clemens 
#1 ·
When fielding questions at farmers markets and presentations-
Ive noticed that John Q. Public doesnt seem to realize that it is standard proceedure for most beekeepers to dose their hives with miticides and antibiotics at least once, twice a year- Mavrik., etc.

They are vaugely aware that the bees are in some kind of trouble but... When I let it slip once or twice that most keepers poison their hives, I noticed that people were really shocked that "natural, raw honey" comes from hives where the bees were dosed with pesticides .

ok get ready... here it comes...

SINCERE YET RHETORICAL NAive question ALERT!...

Do we, as beekeepers have any responsibility to inform the public about possible toxic exposure from what has been marketed as pure and natural- for decades?

Have our practices helped to perpetuate the decline of the honeybees and decieved the public?

Matt
 
See less See more
#36 ·
Prepared Testimony of Maryann Frazier
Senior Extension Associate
Department of Entomology
The Pennsylvania State University
before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
on
Update on Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey Bee Colonies in the United States
June 26, 2008
http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/110/h80626/Frazier.doc


In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides including six of their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each. Only three of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides. In a total of 88 wax samples analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites were identified. As was found in pollen, fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, were the most commonly detected pesticides with fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of the samples.

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 over time resulting in a significant increase in toxicity to honey bees, makes this a serious concern. 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. European researchers have found similar pesticides and frequencies in hive matrices and express similar concerns. Also these chronic levels of pesticides in pollen and wax at potentially acute toxicity levels need further investigation with regard to their potential interactions with other stressors (e.g. IAPV) and their potential contribution to CCD.
and

Additionally, the chemical miticides being used to control varroa mites, accumulate in the wax combs and pollen reserves and are possibly contributing to the bee’s demise as much as they are controlling the mites. For the beekeeping industry to survive we must have safe, effective varroa mite control methods. This will only happen if significant new resources are focused in this direction.
 
#39 ·
If not chemicals what?

What are you beeks that are not putting anything in your hives using to control the pests and problems? I have used fluvalinate and coumaphos to control mites, fumidil for nosema and tylan for foul brood. I have a hard time believing that some of you or as someone said most of you are not using any chemicals or treatments in your hives.
 
#40 ·
You take care of your stuff

I treat my bees with any thing I can to get rid of the problems I have. Just as anyone would treat their livestock cows, chickens, pigs, or any thing else they have. I can not and will not rebuild the amount of hives and investment we lose by my not caring for my bees. Have you thought of the replacement cost a commercial beekeeper would suffer by not treating our hives with the approved methods. I know all the hobbyist that micro manage a few hives can suffer that loss and rebuild but not us pros but they treat their bees too. And yes we do sell in bulk so labeling isn't a big issue there. When it's sold around my place it's in 55 gallon barrels. So then I wonder how many hives some commercial people may have because I have never sat at a farmers market selling honey and probably in all my time haven't bottled more that 2 barrels in one year of honey to give most of that away.
 
#41 ·
someone said

"My honey is subjected to rigorous lab analysis before it is bought"

the big packers do rigorous analysis and then compare the data to their own internal specs which meet or exceed EPA regs for trace chems.

so this statement above does not neccessarily mean the honey is free of beekeeper applied materials. not sure of the context of the poster.

in the upper midwest, the use of homeboy treatments that are illegal is the norm. many commercial beeks have been fined in MN and NoDak in the past years. a recent BCulture informal survey showed something like 65% of all beeks surveyed used a hard chems to treat for mites.

in general beesource is full of smaller beekeepers not the big boys who never would say in public or online what they are using for mites.

i am against the use of hard chems in any hive but the truth is not many users of beesource make their sole living only with their bees so the finger waving here is kind of hypocritical.

its easy to point finger when your honey business is a hobby or sideline.
 
#50 ·
i am against the use of hard chems in any hive but the truth is not many users of beesource make their sole living only with their bees so the finger waving here is kind of hypocritical.

its easy to point finger when your honey business is a hobby or sideline.
Help me understand this.

To my way of thinking, being hypocritical would be when a hobby or sideline beekeeper criticizes a "big producer" for using hard chems and then uses these chems in their own hives.

*hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

I'm not into pointing fingers as much as I am into letting consumers know what they're getting when they buy MY honey.
 
#44 ·
Since the foundation you put in your supers comes from cappings (as there is seldom any wax worth trying to extract from brood combs) and since that has been shown to be contaminated BEFORE you even put it in your hive, I don't see how you can say that supers don't get contaminated. Or that your honey is not contaminated? How did the cappings get contaminated in the first place? And now that you put them (in the form of new foundation) in your supers, how is it not contaminating your honey even if you never put any chemicals in your hive?
 
#46 ·
mr laury sezs:
My honey is subjected to rigorous lab analysis before it is bought. Don't think you can say the same for flea market.

tecumseh:
first a couple of questions... why is the above necessary? and could anyone really be certain as to what such test might or might not tell you?

well I do sell a bit of my crop at a local flea markets and not one single customer has ever asked for my housekeeping seal of approval.... most seem to be seeking a product that is authentic, unadulterated and local. I think most know that they don't live in a 'clean room' or sanitized bubble.

(based on conversations) folks who are significant honey consumers seem to me to be quite aware of some of the stuff that is being placed into hives. I don't think??? it profits any person producing product to hide their head in the sand and pretend the consuming public is ignorant in regards to these matters (actively avoiding a topic typically implies guilt).

to be quite honest I am not a purist is regards to treatment. if a hive is sick I treat and some small level of treatment I do simply because I do produce a insignificant number of nucs. so I will likely continue to treat for afb* and nosema in the winter months.

in regards to treatment of any kind...the really bottom line for me is that I am really not interested in helping produce a super bug (like the existing model of the varroa ain't bad enough). given the past history of the varroa anyone who places 'pest strips' inside of a hive (in my small mind) is aiding and abetting the varroa.

mathis pollinator writes:
Just as anyone would treat their livestock cows, chickens, pigs, or any thing else they have. I can not and will not rebuild the amount of hives and investment we lose by my not caring for my bees.

tecumseh replies:
my good neighbors to the south (and they are most definitely commercial) advertise that they do not.

your statement does suggest two problems...

the first problem mathis is that the 'insecticide' (pest strip) treatments will eventually insure resistance. so you are only delaying the inevitable. if you are using 'shop towel' treatments you are likely speeding up this process.

the second problem is in regards to product and hive contamination... which is a problem that is typically passed off to the honey consuming public.

*after several years of importing a significant level of minnesota hygenic stock I will likely curtain any treatment for afb this year (wait, watch and see). I mention this in that this does suggest that strategy (which is really what integrated pest management is really all about) can minimize treatment (it should also limit how quickly pest obtain resistance).
 
#51 ·
Rigorous testing

Hi Barry

When I sell to Golden Heritage foods, my main buyer, they run chem analysis for all the miticides and antibiotics. They also analyze for BACTERIA even. I send them a sample first for prelim screen. Then when honey is received it gets tested again. Takes nearly 30 days to complete. This is not done in house but by an independent lab. If you have an inkling that there may be residue you wouldn't want to ship honey to them because if it doesn't pass you pay freight. I have never had any of my honey come up with even minimal residues. I do use a hard treatment but very carefully. The material I use has not shown up in the pollen contamination studies AT ALL because it does not have an affinity for honey or wax, unlike the APPROVED materials ( fluvalinate & coumaphos ) both of which did appear. Yes there is some misuse of chemicals but not all of the contamination is from homeboy treatments I don't think.

This thread has been good for me because it made me think and wonder why I felt so threatened by the blanket comments about chemical use. The reason is that I take a great deal of pride in what I produce and wouldn't sell something I wouldn't put on my own table, yet my living depends on the well being of my bees. So I have to make choices. Walk a mile in my shoes before you accuse criticize and abuse.
 
#55 ·
they run chem analysis for all the miticides and antibiotics. They also analyze for BACTERIA even. I send them a sample first for prelim screen. Then when honey is received it gets tested again.
So do you get a printout of the analysis or simply a pass/fail notice?

I have never had any of my honey come up with even minimal residues.
This statement leads me to believe that you are not given a copy of the complete analysis with all breakdowns shown. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I do use a hard treatment but very carefully. The material I use has not shown up in the pollen contamination studies AT ALL because it does not have an affinity for honey or wax, unlike the APPROVED materials ( fluvalinate & coumaphos ) both of which did appear.
So your wax did show contamination of fluvalinate & coumaphos if I understand what you wrote above?

Walk a mile in my shoes before you accuse criticize and abuse
I don't recall accusing or abusing you in what I've written. I am critical about the use of chemicals and drugs and the purity of honey. I'm also a bit skeptical about the testing and what levels are considered acceptable due to the fact that those acceptable levels have changed over time, and I don't mean they've become more stringent, but I won't push this issue too hard.

If the little guy can manage things in such a way where chemicals and drugs aren't used in their hive, why the apparent animosity for them making this known to the consumer?
 
#56 ·
Analysis

I have seen the printouts on the desk no they don't send them out but I am sure they would if requested. If you really want to know just contact GH these people are highly ethical.

Wax contamination I refer to is the post in this thread by deknow, I think you just wish my wax showed contamination.

What acceptable levels levels have changed over time? What fact are you referring to?
 
#65 ·
I did not know there was a term for the so called miss labled or illegal chemicals keepers use.Sorry Barry if that offended you on such a heated disscussion.All honey buyers test honey by a ppm scale,Im sure cows,pigs,chickens etc,etc are tested as well.Everyone should remember bees can be so called poisioned from registered chems as well.
 
#69 ·
Also barry:

Your reference is EIGHT YEARS OLD
Yeah! 8 years ago the EPA had to raise the allowable tolerance of coumaphos from 10-15 parts per billion to 100 parts per billion cause 10-15 parts per billion honey was getting hard to come by. So now we're all comfortable with 100 ppb and think nothing of it. Your honey may be passing the acceptable levels of today, but it's potentially ten times more contaminated with coumaphos than it was eight years ago. Some want to manage in such a way as to have levels at or below those of eight years ago.
 
#73 ·
This thread has been a good demonstration of the diversity of the participants on this forum. We have input from wanna-bees to old-timers ; from hobbyists to full-time wholsalers. Purists, realists, philosophers, dreamers, kooks, scientists. What a mix! I love it. ANSWERS?? They're in there somewhere.;)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top