Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Neonic facts

69K views 212 replies 30 participants last post by  Ian 
#1 ·
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".
 
#165 ·
The funding is beside the point. It is the integrity of the researcher which matters.
If anyone slurring Randy Oliver has some evidence that he has manipulated results in some way due to an association with Bayer then put it on the table.
Otherwise, just leave out the innuendo.
Innuendo and conspiracy theory is the sure sign of someone with no real argument.
 
#167 · (Edited)
Probably not even worth defending Randy, this last page or so of posts on the matter was started by a fact, Bayer paid him for some work, and an insinuation, being that's made him twist his work. Seems like those who want to jump on board will not be persuaded otherwise. Evidence is not required.

I've seen "research" that's set up within certain parameters to try to prove the desired result. Don't see it in Randy's work.

Research designed to give a certain result is usually fairly easy to expose if the studies are looked at properly.

So you guys go. As stated if someone has evidence of wrongdoing put it on the table. If you cannot find any, it's a fair assumption there isn't any.
 
#168 ·
I’m firmly convinced that those who presume that others are easily corrupted are actually painting a portrait of themselves. They believe that everyone else shares their ethics.
I believe I need to find the ignore feature here.
 
#174 ·
Who are these farmers? When I was a kid they worked hard and did fairly well. Today they are gone, can't make ends meet or they turned their real estate into developments and walked away with a bundle. I think an independent framer has a much better chance of making it now and in the future because more people see the benefits of organic sustainability. If you are a corporation running your farm as a factory it doesn't give me the picture of a farmer. I know, I am old.
 
#175 ·
Brian: I am living in the heart of the farm belt. What is happening mirrors what has happened in our economy at large. Bigger farms and fewer farmers. The most efficient that make best use of "modern" farming practices that maximize yields are the ones with the capital to purchase more farm land and on and on it goes. Unfortunately the old farming practices are just becoming a distant memory. Many farmers used to eke out a living on a quarter section of land, now that ground may bring a million and a half dollars. When the old farmer is gone its not surprising what the majority of the heirs choose to do with the land.
 
#176 ·
Farms will only get larger. In 1965, when I first began to date the "farmer's daughter", there were close to 100 farm families, today there are 3. Of course, there are also numerous 'Vertical Farming" arrangements, but it's hard to call these farms... IMHO. For example... my wife's nephew raises 500000 chickens at a time in numerous industrial quality buidings.. the main job seems to be picking up dead chickens and monitoring environmental quality guages.... much more like industry work than old time farming. Hogs, chickens, turkeys, are all done this way... vertical farming. I don't have a solution, people who suggest many small organic farms are the solution really do not know the problem.
 
#191 ·
I don't have a solution, people who suggest many small organic farms are the solution really do not know the problem.
The problem is we have an addiction for things that are cheap and lose site of the end game. It is nice to be able to buy things that are cheap until you no longer have a job because we didn't think ahead. 5000000 chickens is a factory that produces cheap chickens and cheap eggs, both suck as a food product but at the market they look good. If you are going to solve problems in the future you can't have a mind set that only looks at today.

I don't know if the powerful corporation can be turned around. They are certainly not going to give up their power no more than a worthless congressman would. The only thing the little guy has going for him is the "demand" factor in a free economy. Large corporations offer organic foods now when they insisted there was no difference. Seems like there is, even if in their eyes it is only economics.

Jim, what is happening is not sustainable. So when the crash comes be prepared for the bail out on the backs of the middle class ... another depression. Probably it will top the great depression. The difference is the wealthy will not be jumping off the empire state building or any sizable bridge like happened in 39. It will be more like the bank and wall street bail out where the middle class will get screwed. We have a socialistic not a "free" market economy.
"Too big to fail" how dumb can we be?

All empires fall because they can not see the future. The United States of America is surely in a decline. Is it so hard to predict the future?
 
#177 ·
So you call Randy Oliver into question. And you don't even have the courage to do it clearly and distinctly. I challenge on that and now invite you to support that claim in detail tell us exactly what Randy has ever said that indicates his work is wrong suspect or unreliable. I say it is obvious that all apply liberally to your claim.
still waiting . . . . .
 
#179 ·
Because of the way the land lays here there are few flat fields bigger than 10 acres or so. So there is not much appeal to big ag to buy up land. We still have quite a few family farms. But the only common crop that will make a reliable profit is corn. And these guys love their "Monster (Monsanto) corn".
 
#180 ·
Bees need a wide and varied pollen source to get all the amino acids they need.
Different pollens have different combinations of amino acids.
Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition.
The roundup ready form of agriculture is maybe what needs examination rather than the neonicotinoids. -jonathan
Those comments are worth repeating. That one line, "Monoculture is a disaster for bee nutrition," is a variant on what I keep repeating in my head when I'm scouting new yard locations.

More than that, even if you find two or three crops, it's close enough to a monoculture to have the same sort of influence on bees.

I don't know if anyone else has caught it, but studies have been posted here in this thread, too, that state clearly that neonicotinoids are detectable in pollen in trace amounts if the neonicotinoids are present. Hardly the "doing damage but cannot be physically detected" phenomenon that has been asserted in some claims.
 
#186 ·
wrongdoing IS do not disclose financial sources and potential conflict of interest in research paper. It is simply requirement to disclose. If you are talking about Randy Oliver - he is publishing in non-scientific journals and thus, non-disclosure of his financial resources is exclusively on him. In my research papers,yes, I do disclose all potential conflict of interests. It is just normal practice. Did I answer your question?
 
#187 ·
but sergey, randy oliver's papers are not 'research papers'. these are articles for beekeepers. i find them invaluable because he is able to review and critique the research and present it to me in a form that i can digest and use in a practical way. it is clear to me that randy does not have any agenda other than getting to the truth, and that he is not beholding to any of his many contributors. he makes his living as a beekeeper, but he is uniquely educated and qualified to be a reliable source of information for you and i when it comes to making sense out of the science.
 
#192 ·
Re post #189

Well some fair points, I'm going to accept that Cerezha. I did read the previous post you mentioned, but didn't really consider it that valuable because it focussed on critique of basing a paper on research done by others, but Randy is entitled to do that he is collating info into a format to be read by beekeepers, but mainly, he does not just do that, he also does his own work.

Still don't think the study was deliberately skewed or anything, however again, I accept the points you raise, but it's not enough to question the mans integrity.
 
#194 ·
...Still don't think the study was deliberately skewed or anything, however again, I accept the points you raise, but it's not enough to question the mans integrity.
I do not think that study was purposely biased. As I explained in my old post-review, my explanation is that Randy was trying to balance too much between hard science and .... beekeepers (who provide financial support). It is very difficult to keep a balance in such situation... "Realistic field test" is not Randy's "invention", it is actually EPA! But Randy support it. It may be interested to know for this audience that according EPA, there is no connection yet between the alcohol and human health - just not enough statistics, the facts (deaths). Similarly, it took hundreds of thousands deaths to prove that asbest is dangerous... lead, you name it...

"but it's not enough to question the mans integrity" - I am not questioning anybody integrity. But, you need to understand that I DO have my own integrity also - my "integrity" "forced" me to be humiliated on this forum by advocating for truth and science... so weird...

Thank you so much everyone, who supported my efforts.
 
#196 ·
The Locavore and Organic movements have much potential, but I doubt they have the ability to feed the world as we seem required to do. The Locavore and Organic consumers are largely the "High End", the masses are still eating my nephews chickens...
 
#199 ·
As an independent organic farmer and beekeeper I am very suspicious of industry funded agencies.
- on that note I found this post quite thought provoking:
Hi "JohntheFarmer" - what do you organically farm on the Orkneys? Sheep? Maybe those tough little Cheviots. What do you find thought provoking about your "CrossPost"?

Do you know Stromness bees? You must as the Orkneys are not a large place.
 
#201 · (Edited)
The toxicity of neonics will be "re-discovered" after many-many deaths... -cerezha
I don't doubt or question the toxicity of neonicotinoids in bees or other insects.

I do question how long neonicotinoids persist in the soil and in plants. Aphids feeding on crops that have been planted with seed treatments or soil treatments of neonicotinoids show no effects to their populations four to six weeks after planting. This class of insecticides is intended to target piercing-sucking insects (such as aphids) more than other insects, and the systemic action of the pesticides should target them nicely. I've done the counts of aphids on the two groups -- treated and not -- and can confirm that no difference exists in the populations and population growths on both soybeans and corn treated with neonicotinoids at planting. I've counted aphids on both from early July through September here.

I question how much field exposure bees actually face in most years from neonicotinoids. Bees here do not seem to collect much pollen in corn, and I've rarely encountered large numbers of bees in corn fields in the last several years (despite spending thousands of hours in corn fields sampling insect populations of various species). I've never observed bees around here collecting guttation fluids from corn; that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, but I doubt it's common here.

And I question whether even a strong correlation between neonicotinoid exposure and CCD exists. That seems to be the central thesis in this thread, yet I'm not convinced that such a correlation exists. Even that Harvard study that was linked in Randy Oliver's review demonstrated that the bees in the treated hives died in January and February. Now, I have not seen CCD in person, but I thought the losses occurred in the fall (a.k.a, "fall dwindling?") rather than in the winter? And I thought a suite of other symptoms also characterized CCD?
 
#202 ·
John: if you take nothing else away from your experience on this forum I would hope it is that there are some pretty bright well spoken folks on here capable of analyzing and arriving at informed conclusions that may be different than yours. People that come on here only to make what, in effect, are nothing more than social statements are really missing out on some great bee discussions by some really talented beekeepers. Please join us, you just might like it, most of us would like to hear about beekeeping in Scotland and I would think you would enjoy hearing about the experiences of beekeepers in other parts of the world as well.
 
#205 ·
I've taken bigger losses this winter than I ever have, but I knew it was coming. Fall flowers ended blooming here by the second week of September, and freeze-up didn't really set in until the middle of November. My bees shut down brood rearing really in late August, and never produced the late brood that I expect to get them through the winter. I tried feeding them to get them to raise another round of brood in October, but couldn't get them to do it.

I blame it on the unusually early progression of the various blooms during the season last year, and severely dry conditions from late July through December.
 
#206 ·
that seems to be a common theme among the majority of beekeepers I have talked to up here.
our bees stopped flying middle of October, and have been locked up in the dark ever since November. Not even the outdoor hives have had warm enough days to make cleansing flights. Starting to worry up here,
 
#209 ·
these type of threads appear every couple of months. Of course if Neonic pesticide use were the cause of CCD, then the CCD impact areas would map to the areas of the country that have the strongest concentrations of neonic pesticides use but it doesn't; however. In areas of strong pesticide use like North Dakota bees thrive and has been reported CCD in areas of the country where no row crops are grown.

pesticides aren't going away any time soon. Perhaps it's just my pref, but I'd rather that the pesticides which are getting used are somewhat naturally derived (as neonics pesticides are derived from tobacco). It's definitely a safer and more targeted pesticide (ie. targets invertebrates) than the first generations of pesticides. Dr. Eric Mussen who studies pesticide affects on bees for a living has mentioned that low concentrations of neonic pesticides on bees (as would happen from secondary exposure via spray on field crops) effects bees the same way as tobacco on humans (as a stimulant) and actually makes the bees faster and more productive. At high concentrations it has the opposite effect and starts to slow bees down. Direct exposure, as in the anomaly of the airborne neonic pesticide blowing directly into hives in Germany that always gets sited, is a lethal dose for bees and causes immediate 'direct death from pesticide' not CCD.

here's a great link from randy oliver's site
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/
 
#210 ·
Just for a bit of fun this year, when I saw some tobacco seeds being sold for $5, I bought a pack. Ended up with 96 plants which have been harvested and are now drying. I don't smoke but have been hearing all my life about tobacco being used to smoke bees and was curious to try it.

What I'm doing is mixing a tobacco leaf or two with my other smoker fuel. And yes, it DOES make the smoker burn better, and can puff up a good amount of smoke pretty quick. Not sure if it was coincidence but on the odd occasion the bees have been more aggressive than expected perhaps they don't like it.

In any case having read this thread I now realise my mistake. All my bees will have sub lethal doses and I can expect them all to perish from CCD. ;)
 
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