Neonic facts

[oldforte]

Until actual FACTS are presented that neonics were found IN THE DEAD BEES of deadouts by scientific methods please do not continue to present the conjecture that the bees existance is coming to an end because of it. Opinion is one thing....having proof is entirely different...and so far no proof has been presented. Until that time start your dribble by "in my opinion".

[JRG13]

It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.

[jim lyon]

It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.

Both? Seems more like a dozen to me. I gave up trying to keep track of them all. Too many winter storms, too many beekeepers with too much time on their hands. I plead guilty and throw myself at the mercy of the board for my part in it. Somebody gave the pig wrestling analogy.....that was good.

[cerezha]

It's ok, I've killed both of those threads apparently.

Do you feel better if you shut up different opinion(s)? You are very naive if think that you are in power to change somebody. People just drift away from this source. As a result, you guys could enjoy yourself... references to the absence of the "facts" is just pathetic and sad. If somebody is not capable to learn something new outside of the box, than, yes, for this blind mind - there are no "facts"! Why, because, facts are outside of the box. My apology, nothing personal.

[bobbarker]

The problem is that there are a lot of new beeks that are looking for help and answers when something is going wrong, or has gone wrong, and people swearing up and down that it's all because of neonics aren't doing them any favors. When you tell a new beek that their hives died this winter because of neonics, it tells them 1) They shouldn't keep bees anymore, because there's nothing they can do to stop their bees from being exposed, and all of their hives will die anyways, and/or 2) They stop trying to find out what actually caused the problem. Yes, it could have been from neonics, but not necessarily. It could have been something that actually is preventable, but they don't know that.

I agree with you Oldforte, people need to stop presenting conjecture as fact and wait for the evidence to roll in.

[Gord]

The purpose of this forum is (as far as I know) to promote the free exchange of ideas and information.
That's not happening a lot nowadays.
I've seen a lot of posts that are simply slanderous garbage, posted by a lot of people who are hiding behind a keyboard.
And it's not any particular group, but it is widespread.
People demanding proof of an idea, far beyond what they could possibly provide to support their own position.
If you don't agree with a post, why not say yes, no, or maybe so?
Better yet, why not say nothing, unless you have value to add?

Don't hit send; ask yourself "What good is this going to do?"
It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
I gotta say, a lot of doubt has been removed lately...

[JRG13]

You're right Jim, I should tally them up, it's hardwork, but somebody has to do be the kaboose.

[cerezha]

You're right Jim, I should tally them up, it's hardwork, but somebody has to do be the kaboose.

It looks like you miss the station... are you trying to reverse train's direction? You have emotions but no facts. You probably need to know that in any civilized country any chemical substance, which is used on food needs to be proven harmless to people, domestic stock, environment etc. What you want is to prove that substance is harmful ("fact"). You pushing the train in opposite direction. There is no need to prove that substance is harmful, because by definition, the substance is assumed to be harmful if not proven opposite. Please, do not ask for "facts" - Wikipedia is a good starting point. Many people on this source, who is silenced, will be happy to help if you express the desire to understand, not issue stupid statements. My apology, nothing personal.

[oldforte]

Do you feel better if you shut up different opinion(s)? You are very naive if think that you are in power to change somebody. People just drift away from this source. As a result, you guys could enjoy yourself... references to the absence of the "facts" is just pathetic and sad. If somebody is not capable to learn something new outside of the box, than, yes, for this blind mind - there are no "facts"! Why, because, facts are outside of the box. My apology, nothing personal.

"absence of "facts" is pathetic and sad". That is a sad comentary. Please look up conjecture in the dictionary. The primary reason for this thread was that someone presented the subject as being "factual". AND IT WAS NOT! Amen.

[cerezha]

Until actual FACTS are presented that neonics were found IN THE DEAD BEES...

Non-sense because it is shown that neonics have effect on bees at sub-lethal dose. Do you know what "sub-lethal" means? It means that bees do not die in the hive - they ...CCD. Now, are you familiar with definition of CCD? Check Wikipedia at least. Absence of the large quantities of the dead bees in the beehive is one of the CCD indicators. Thus, your statement is inaccurate. Also, it looks like, you are not a beekeeper (sorry, nothing personal) because, even myself with very limited bee-experience know that sick bees normally leave the beehive to die away from the hive. This is protection from spreading the "source of death" (may be a chemical or pathogen). Thus, in most cases, there are no dead bees. Now, how you want to find any evidence if technically, there are no substantial amount of dead bees? Where the pig?

[jim lyon]

In the case of field corn there isn't a whole lot of pollen to be gathered and bees will work it only when there is nothing else to be found. I heard a talk on this at AHPA from a researcher who placed some hives in Nebraska in the middle of miles of irrigated corn and found a high percentage of hives that had no traces of corn pollen in the hives.. He said that it was a result of breeding. Not so with sweet corn, though, which was found to contain much more pollen.

[Oldtimer]

Yes as a general rule, plants that are wind pollinated have a very low nutrient pollen that is not beneficial to bees, it has to be this way to make the pollen grains as light as possible. Bees can mostly detect this, although I have seen bees gathering pollen from wind pollinated pine trees, this at a time when there were few options.

To me, it is not impossible that bees could collect contaminated pollen from something that's been sprayed with a systemic insecticide, including neonics. There is scant evidence though, but it's something I feel we should be aware of it could be from beekeepers own observations that breakthroughs are made.

Jim, were that researchers hives in a situation where they suffered pollen shortage but still did not collect the corn pollen? If so, that would help eliminate corn pollen as a danger although of course it's just one experiment.

[jim lyon]

OT: What I remember was that they brought very strong hives into an area saturated with corn to study whether the pollen that was gathered had any traces of neonics and if so at what concentrations they were found. They were, however, surprised at how difficult it was to find any corn pollen whatsoever in the hives and that the amounts they did detect were pretty insignificant. The researchers made the casual observation that walking through the corn was a whole different experience than it was 20 years ago when the pollen was thick in the air when disturbed. It seems a bit odd to me that lower pollen content would be consistent with higher corn yields.

[Oldtimer]

Did they test the wax for contamination?

[jim lyon]

I think just the pollen.

[hpm08161947]

The researchers made the casual observation that walking through the corn was a whole different experience than it was 20 years ago when the pollen was thick in the air when disturbed. It seems a bit odd to me that lower pollen content would be consistent with higher corn yields.

I wonder if modern day field corn consists of monoploid corn kernels? Of course one does see sprouted corn in an early harvested field, unless this monoploid corn will germinate. Which it may well do. I wonder if corn genetics is as complicated as bee genetics?

[squarepeg]

cam, here's what randy oliver had to say about the krupke study:

"Planting dust: Krupke (2012) contained little new information–planting dust can cause bee mortality; the test colonies recovered (Greg Hunt, pers comm). Points out potential synergies with fungicides—there are also other pesticides in the dust. There is a large body of research already published on this issue—see Krupke’s or Marzaro’s (2011) references sections."

interesting that those colonies recovered. hopefully the dust issue is being addressed by the agricultural community.

[Acebird]

Bees can mostly detect this, although I have seen bees gathering pollen from wind pollinated pine trees, this at a time when there were few options.

Both my wife and I have witnessed bees covering our scrub pines at a certain time in the summer. Usually late in the evening and usually when there has been plenty to forage on during the day. We guessed that they were after the sap for propolise but we really don't know.