Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

CCD Research

53K views 244 replies 30 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
#162 ·
Compared to this? I thought that CCD was what this whole Thread was about. CCD Research saying that CCD is caused by neonic. No?

"The other 25% of the 30%?" Reports I have heard of attributed most of the "Winterloss/Die Back" is attributable to nonCCD related causes.
 
#164 ·
I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)

His study really was about the other 25%.

How long will it take for most soils to accumulate enough contamination before we see greater overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores?

1 year? 5 years?

I haven't seen a comprehensive study on neonic levels in the various soil types in the U.S. .

It probably doesn't exist.
 
#167 ·
I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
Sure they did...but they didn't explore that possibility in their study, and at least 2 of the 3 authors deny this is what happened.
It would also have been nice to know how contaminated the stores were....something one would look at if they were considering the possibility that contaminated stores was the cause of hive collapse.

The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)
....and the last time I heard Dr. Lu speak on the subject, he stated explicitly that (paraphrase)'scientists are now changing their definition of CCD based on our study'

I asked him which scientists when and where.....he didn't know. That's when he dropped the gem that as far as defining CCD, wikipedia was "the gold standard".....but given that the hives were found without queens, the wikipedia definition (at least at the time) specifically excludes the symtpoms they induced from being considered CCD.

deknow

deknow
 
#168 · (Edited)
You're missing the whole picture.

Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted.

The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.

The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .
They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .

Perhaps if they performed some column migration studies for different soil types, they could understand this effect more clearly.

Which soil types bind the neonics tightly, and which ones release it easily upon 'irrigation'.

Also, since farmers do use many kinds of soil conditioners, they might release any neonics that are tightly bound to clays or other minerals.
 
#172 ·
You're missing the whole picture. Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted. The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .
With what health and abundance consequences for pollinators? Dave Goulson hasn't documented that honeybees are actually having widespread and unexplained health problems in the regions (like Steve Ellis's region of west-central Minnesota) where - for the past 5+ consecutive years - the landscape has been covered with crop monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. Or documented that pollinators such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, etc. are no longer abundant on the margins of the neonic treated fields. They ARE abundant, as I show in this long 16 minute video I shot last August in the heart of the corn and soy neonic monocultures of south-central Minnesota (just 70 miles southeast from Barrett, Minnesota where Steve Ellis lives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE
 
#171 ·
"Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles."

So, according to Goulson, 90% of the neonics from the seed coat end up in the soil, and not in the plant.

That's alot of residue left 'tightly bound' in the soil, don't you think?
 
#178 ·
An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop. A three year, $6 million study showed GMO crops to be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3196768.stm
 
#179 ·
An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop.
GMO corn or non-GMO, the corn plants nowadays are so tightly spaced that pollinators can't gain access to weeds that might be growing under the corn crop canopy from July onwards: https://imageshack.com/a/img21/7131/7e45.jpg
And GMO or non-GMO, the field margins / ditches / roadsides still have flowering plants in most cases (e.g. alfalfa, red clover, thistles, sunflowers, milkweeds) and those plants set plenty of seed because there are plenty of pollinators in those field margins.
 
#180 ·
Part of the registration package of studies required for any pesticide by the US, Canada, Europe, or any other place in the world is called environmental fate. Those E Fate studies involve dosing various soil samples with the test substance, incubating under real life conditions and showing what the pesticides fate is. Fate means how long it takes to degrade (half life), what the various degradation products are and how long they take to degrade if such studies are appropriate. These degradation tests have to be done with various soil types. Typically registration studies are not published as they are private information between the pesticide registrant and the government. If the registrant wishes to publish he is free to do so. On the other hand he has spent many millions of dollars and many years generating this data and may not wish to share it with his competitors for rather obvious reasons.

The same situation exists with crop residues. For any crop the registrant wishes to have on his label he must provide the various government agencies with residue data. This data is generated by treating test plots of crops grown under real agricultural conditions, harvested by normal agricultural methods, sometimes even shipped to markets for that product under normal handling and then sampled. Typically the lab work involves determining both the level of residue of the pesticide as well as the levels of any metabolites that are of biological interest. Obviously metabolites such as water are not of biological interest. Again registrants spend many millions of dollars generating this type of date for each labeled crop and are not generally willing to share such data publicly, but are required by law to supply this data to the various regulatory agencies.

There are also migratory studies to show how the pesticide moves in the soil or water, how metabolites of interest move in soil, impact on non target species such as bees, bio-accumulation studies, etc that are all part of the registration package. Also degradation studies that show how the product bio-degrade pathway in treated plants (if taken up by the plant), how it biodegrades in various animal species, etc. As well as more tests triggered by any bio-degradation product that may be toxic.

In addition there are many, many studies of the pesticide and metabolites of interest in various animal species. These studies must show things like no effect levels, lack of mutagenicity, lack of cancers, lack of induced allergic reactions, lack of negative impact on reproduction, and on and on.

All of this type of data for pesticides must be generated using good laboratory practices (GLP). GLP is mainly about documentation of exactly what you did, including calibration data for all balances and instruments used, how the sample was handled, lot numbers of all reagents used, etc. The fines and jail terms for falsifying data are very real and very scary to any rational person doing such studies. After a company has spent maybe $50 million or so putting a registration package together he does not wish to risk the regulatory agency throwing out his registration package because one study has been falsified. The agencies do both announced and unannouced inspections of the whole data generation process as they wish. They often simply show up at your door and tell you today is inspection day. When they show up you welcome them and show them anything they wish to look at. They are very, very good at finding the smallest error. If you do not have a written procedure for how you will round off numbers and follow that procedure every single time you are in trouble.

The studies required and what GLP is all about are all a matter of pubic record and can be found for the US in the code of federal regulations. So, anyone who wishes to better understand this process should feel free to go to a good library and start reading.

Such studies are not one time and we are done items. Often new studies are triggered by learning something under actual use that suggests new studies are required, Periodically the agencies add new rules or change the old rules so studies must be repeated. Also as technology advances new types of studies are added as requirements to maintain registrations. And, it looks like reregistration of all pesticides may well be required about once every 25 years or so based on the last 50 years history. Such reregistration studies mean throw out all the old data and start over with brand new studies. I would guess today it costs someplace around $100 million in such studies to bring a brand new product to market. And, I would guess it probably costs another $10 million per year for studies to support a product until reregistration is next triggered. The paper for a registration study would fill a fairly large delivery van. My costs may be low as they are now dated badly. It has been 17 years since I was current.

So, no one on this group may know a thing about how long any particular pesticide lasts in the environment and may never know. That does not mean the people that have a need to know do not have excellent data. In fact if the product is registered the people that need to know do have excellent data. Published data from any academic institution will never be generated under GLP so the regulatory agencies rightfully do not have the slightest interest in such data. Any accusation that the data does not exist is simply ignorance of the registration process and ignorance of the law. Further, the data is none of your business. You have the right to feel the agencies try hard to protect consumer safety but not the right to see any data. Therein lies the rub as none of us has much faith in government in general. That includes me to a fair extent. But, having worked with the FDA and EPA I do have confidence that both know what they are doing and do it well but miserably slowly.

The US EPA would roll on the floor laughing if anyone submitted the Harvard neonic-bee study. They would rate it as meaningless.
 
#182 ·
Thanks Jim, Ill try to post a link to the data when im at the computer and not the phone.

It is this kind of data that makes you wonder why these "average" bees survive at all.

Deknow
 
#184 ·
ppb in syrup in cage studies where there is no.comb or brood?

What should we expect to see from 30ppb (or higher) in beebread being used directly to produce food for.the next generation?

Deknow
 
#185 ·
....and how are such levels being achieved? Planting dust? Off label (high concentration, pestigation, applying to flowes bees are visiting)? Is it being concemtrated in the production of bee bread?

Deknow
 
#186 ·
Dean:

30ppb imidacloprid would be considered sublethal. So, you'd expect to see sublethal effects.

We've been through this whole discussion before, with references. Remember?

How does this relate to the concentrations in the Harvard study?

It's hard to say with all of the issues with their methodology.

I'm just pointing out that the observed LD50 of a pesticide can be quite subjective depending on unknown factors.

We don't know why it varies so much from study to study.
 
#187 · (Edited)
30ppb imidacloprid would be considered sublethal. So, you'd expect to see sublethal effects.
Am I mistaken, or are you referencing caged bee studies on adult bees and assuming the effect is similar/the same for nurse bees consuming beebread and feeding larvae?
Such an assumption is worthless

How does this relate to the concentrations in the Harvard study?
The harvard study,.as well as many of the.others brought up here all make claims as to what is a field realistic.dose. If we cant come to some understanding as to what bees are actually being exposed to, then we can all walk around with a different idea of what field realistic means.

The USDA pollen data is shocking....not only for how much imidacloprid was found, but how much beekeeper applied trestmentreatments were found. All of this in stored pollen that is to build new bees.

deknow
 
#188 ·
Jim/ Deknow... curious, what types of crops are your bees on? is canola one of them?? wondering if certian plants are much worse for that than others. such as here corn is the main one, and we don't get a ton of corn pollen, but some.....

Any info on how the hives with higher levels fared for overwinter/ honey production???

And last question, is there any info on hives from other areas where these Chems would be lower/nonexistant??
 
#190 ·
I am waiting for someone to do a study comparing real life sub lethal dosages of neonics both with and without different concentrations of miticides commonly used by beekeepers. Have I missed it? Wouldnt that be far more relevant given the data in the USDA/APHIS report? How can any good scientist wanting to know the answer to CCD/hive collapse look at these numbers and not want to, first and foremost, do a study of the very chemicals found in the greatest concentrations in field tested hives? Shouldnt that be the very first thing that should be studied? Look at the Lu study, for example, and look at the backgrounds of the research team, then tell me why they decided to study Imadacloprid and nothing else.
 
#192 · (Edited)
...they did (in the Harvard Study) treat the hives with apistan and fumidil....experimental and controls. They reported no mite counts, and refused to answer my questions on the subject. Ken (the beekeeper involved in the study), is an excellent beekeeper....he is our inspector, and although I like to be around for inspections, I have no problem with him opening our hives when we are not around. He generally has excellent winter survival, but didn't run these study hives exactly like he runs his own.

Also note that many beekeepers were (when the survey was taken) using Amitraz illegally (I think about 1/3 of the samples had Amitraz metabolites).

I've posted this data here on beesource before (on threads with anti-neonic types), and I've posted this data on Bee-L.

Everyone wants to blame Bayer, Monsanto, Farmers, etc...it's easier than looking at what beekeepers are actually doing.

deknow
 
#191 ·
Here is the USDA report, so you can read it for yourself.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_hea...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf

This data seems to fly in the face of what we are told the bees are exposed to...if this is what is being found in the stored pollen, are we really surprised if the bees are having issues? Do we really need to subscribe to some theory that says that undetectable levels of this or that can slightly affect bees if they are in a cage when we have such hard data on what (at least some of the migratory bees) are actually storing with their pollen?

WLC, it also seems rather odd that you are willing to simply apply data from syrup fed caged bees and apply it to beebread eating nurse bees that are raising the next generation....especially since you seem to think that the concept that imidacloprid is toxic to bees when it is found in winter stores can be toxic somehow novel and a breakthrough. The former is a stretch by any standard, and the latter is so obvious that it need not even be tested....yet you spout the former and laud the latter as worthwhile.

deknow
 
#193 ·
No canola in our area. Primary honey forage is clover and alfalfa with a few sunflowers sprinkled in. Lots and lots of corn and beans.

No one asked for a follow up on the condition of our bees after testing was done in the fall of 2012. I am not aware of any data showing where concentrations were either high or low. I dont even know how broad a geographic area the testing covers.

Any researcher out there wanting to inspect our hives and test them for anything need only contact me. Information is never a bad thing.
 
#194 ·
Dean:

Studies have shown that the pesticide level of the pollen at the source are often much higher than the pesticide levels found in the pollen once it is in the hive. The same can be said about pesticide levels in dosed feeders and the nectar in hives. The stuff seems to disappear.

In short, it's very difficult to predict the resulting pesticide level in the hive once a contaminated food stuff enters the hive.

No one is sure why.

However, you forgot about the control colonies. The study reported that all but one survived, and that one perished from a different cause. they all had the same 'background' levels.

Hopefully, we'll find that once the follow up study has been published, it will make the effect that I speak of more apparent.

Namely, dosed colonies failing to overwinter.
 
#195 ·
In short, it's very difficult to predict the resulting pesticide level in the hive once a contaminated food stuff enters the hive.
So what? I agree it is hard to (on paper) in a specific circumstance, to look at a pesticide application and predict what will end up in the hive.
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to measure what ends up in the hive...which is what the USDA survey did (on a very limited scale).
It is how high some of those levels seem (not how low they seem) that raises my eyebrows. Unless imidacloprid is quickly metabolized by nurse bees in the production of brood food (by eating the fermented pollen), 30ppb in beebread (the average of almost 10% of the samples) would make me very, very concerned (and does). The individual measurements that made up the average were 3.5ppb to 216ppb!

The 24D, fluvalinate, and coumaphos frequencies/levels are also probably of great concern and higher than we are told is a field realistic exposure (I haven't looked at them closely).

The Amitraz metabolites could never be found by analyzing pesticide use (unless the beekeepers reported their own illegal pesticide use).

...all of this is a really good reason to, if one wants to know what bees are exposed to, measure what the bees are being exposed to, not calculate it, and not complain that it is difficult to predict.


However, you forgot about the control colonies. The study reported that all but one survived, and that one perished from a different cause. they all had the same 'background' levels.
Hopefully, we'll find that once the follow up study has been published, it will make the effect that I speak of more apparent.
Namely, dosed colonies failing to overwinter.
Why is it surprising that bees that have stored imidacloprid laced syrup, then completed their honey cap with clean HFCS failed to overwinter?
Isn't it more surprising that colonies that had 15 frames of stores needed to be fed sugar/HFCS patties? That bees that were fed all summer, were full of bees and brood by May never swarmed, never needed supering, never had frames spun out...and had to be fed to prepare them for winter?
None of what is reported makes any sense....except that the surviving dosed hive had moved into a feeder with (presumably) uncontaminated stores.

deknow
 
#196 ·
It is how high some of those levels seem (not how low they seem) that raises my eyebrows. Unless imidacloprid is quickly metabolized by nurse bees in the production of brood food (by eating the fermented pollen), 30ppb in beebread (the average of almost 10% of the samples) would make me very, very concerned (and does). The individual measurements that made up the average were 3.5ppb to 216ppb!
And yet Jim Lyon's hives "were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin" even though his hives (Herrick, South Dakota area) are surrounded by 1000's of square miles worth of monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. And on top of that Jim says: "winter losses in recent years have been minimal"..."Currently our bees have never looked better"
 
#197 ·
50-700 ppb in syrup results in what when it is condensed down to honey? Are there any measurements of what is in pollen found in the hives?

I do suppose that the range woudl be one explanation of why bees near crops in some areas could be effected while bees in other areas are not even though they are also near crops.

If the average for Imidacloprid is 24ppb. How many hives actually measured at exactly 24 ppb?

Given that the rate of losses to hives runs 30% or greater. Does this measurement also indicate that number of losses would be expected? IN other words if the average is 24 ppb could we expect then that 30% of all hives on a regular basis would be exposed to lethal levels?
 
#198 ·
7.5% of the hives showed residues above the 1ppb lod in pollen taken from the comb. Of those 7.5% the average was 24ppb and the range was 2.8 to 216. That is as much detail as the report gives.
 
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