Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 245

Thread: CCD Research

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    4,453

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by gmcharlie View Post
    Very intersting, Are you saying that the 30ppb is a high number or a low number? I am not up on what or how exposure numbers rank. I would also be curious as to where the sample was from?? Might be valuable to caompare numbers from differnt areas and compare that to mortality numbers.
    A 2011/2012 USDA/APHIS survey taken from about 170 different beekeepers (including a sampling of our own hives) showed 7.5% of hives tested positive for Imidacloprid at an average detection of 24ppb. 2.5% were positive for Thiamethoxam at an average of 11.9 ppb. I don't have totals for Clothianidin only results showing our hives were negative for all pesticides and miticides including Clothianidin. BTW 39% were positive for Coumaphos at 59 ppb avg., 46% positive for Fluvalinate at 37 ppb and 24% positive for DMPF (Amitraz) at a 78 ppb avg.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    50-700ppb imidacloprid is the reported LD50 range from various studies.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    50-700ppb imidacloprid is the reported LD50 range from various studies.
    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
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    ....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
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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
    Last edited by deknow; 07-04-2013 at 08:21 AM.
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  8. #188
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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??

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Rader, Greene County, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    6,335

    Default Re: CCD Research

    [\quote]
    The correct character to use in BBCode closure is the forward slash "/", rather than the back slash "\".
    Graham
    --- Practical reality trumps philosophy!

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    4,453

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Here is the USDA report, so you can read it for yourself.

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_heal...vey_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
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by jim lyon View Post
    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.
    ...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
    Last edited by deknow; 07-04-2013 at 08:48 AM.
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    4,453

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,679

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    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
    The perils of benefactors; The blessings of parasites; Blindness blindness and sight -Joni Mitchell 'Shadows and Light'

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    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"

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Reno, NV
    Posts
    3,068

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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?
    Stand for what you believe, even if you stand alone.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Herrick, SD USA
    Posts
    4,453

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Y View Post
    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?
    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.
    "People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    What I'm trying to communicate is: if the pollen imidacloprid concentrations in the hive were 30ppb, then the concentrations at the source were much higher.

    I'm painting a portrait of an environmentl pollutant.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    9 out of 10 regular smokers will NOT get lung cancer--yet this in no way means that smoking does not cause lung cancer.

    I'm truly glad that Jim's bees to date are happy and healthy.

    Really the issue isn't whether neonics are causing harm to bees or not--there's pretty clear data that shows they are--the issue is why some beeks are affected and others are not. Maybe the solution is as simple as reducing the level of pesticide in the seed coatings. As the Purdue study points out, one kernel of neonic-coated seed corn has enough poison on it to kill 100,000 bees.

    "Assessment of the Environmental Exposure of Honeybees to Particulate Matter Containing Neonicotinoid Insecticides Coming from Corn Coated Seeds"
    http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/p...reatedcorn.pdf

    You'd think that Bayer, Monsanto, and Syngenta would be conducting some LONG TERM studies into the impacts on honeybees to neonics exposure, or maybe they are and just aren't sharing the data. The Bayer-funded study linked to above was a joke--only exposing the bees to neonics for TWO WEEKS and then declaring that neonics don't harm bees.....

    There's no doubt in my mind that neonics are NOT the single cause of CCD. They is however mounting evidence that neonics are playing a role in CCD--how big a factor is yet to be determined.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueDiamond View Post
    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"

Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads