Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Latest varroa cure by BAYER

27K views 64 replies 27 participants last post by  beemandan 
#1 ·
#30 ·
Wow! This has gotten personal really quickly. I just put out my personal opinion on an issue in bee keeping. I think that is what this forum is all about. You may not like my approach to something but give me the opportunity to do it without personal attacks. It matters not to me if you will use these things are not. But I will not.
 
#32 ·
Didn't intend for it to be personal at all. Your first tow post attacked Bayer. not a review of the product or the idea... I consider that a personal attack on Bayer..... I don't use much if any of their products. but don't begrudge those that do a bit...... I try to look at the big picture, notas a conspiracy to take over the bee industry.

Many fail to realize that there are some great people working really hard to solve problems. those guys are no different in my mind than the ones here giving advice on how to keep bees. dramaticly different approaches, but each is doing what they can to help others.. Yup one side draws a check..... but so do the others we all have our motives, some its a paycheck, others its selling nucs or queens or whatever....
 
#33 ·
Yes, I do not like BAYER. Just do a Google search on BAYER, World War 11, Germany. BAYER is also the company that manufactures NEONICITINOIDS. And many studies have shown this chemical to be a big contributor to CCD. But it doesn't matter to me if it is BAYER or Monsanto or any other company proposing putting more chemicals in bee hives. Introducing more and more chemicals to the hives is not working. surely everyone can agree on that. more colonies are being loss each year. If you keep walking down the same path why would you think you will end up at a different place. Personally, and everyone has their own idea on issues and I respect that, I prefer not to continue down the same path. I may loose all my bees. But at least they won't perish because of any chemicals I put in the hive. And if they survive I feel they will be a stronger bee.
 
#34 · (Edited)
You don't have to justify anything GoatMan. "Better living through chemicals" has been a miserable failure in many aspects. For every success story there are probably 2 other nightmare stories. Speaks for itself. I would have more respect for these corporate raiders if they practiced pure science as opposed to applied science for profit. Money kills the good in things. Money for true research is curtailed and shunted to these multinationals so they can control it. It is bad for humanity and the world. Sad really. We end up with expensive, contaminating junk, when what is needed are real answers and not more consumer products to sell us. Give us a consortium with the best and the brightest, with no profit margin involved or proprietary products, and then maybe we we see real solutions. Until then, we get expensive bee gates.
 
#35 ·
Did someone mention Forbes? I've mentioned this before, but Jon Entine has ties to NeoCon, far right, organizations. Yes he did write an article featuring Randy which basically said that there was no science behind the EU neonic ban.

As for the product itself, many of us would agree that we need to develop resistant bees rather than more/newer treatments.

In fact, the USDA has mandated that we develop resistant stocks of Honeybees.

It's the better option in my opinion.
 
#36 ·
Yep, but that is hard to sell back to us and the beeks remain in control. Basic predatory capitalism 101 - eleminate or discredit your competition. Don't see a lot of research dollars being pumped into this do you, at least not in the US. The USDA has tried, but they are not funded like they should be, nor do they get a lot of support and rely on our university system.
 
#37 ·
I think that it's Marketing 101. If there's a demand for resistant stock (which I believe is being driven by small timers/hobbyists rather than commercial beekeepers), then that demand will eventually be met.

Paul, look at it this way, you're on the ground floor. :)
 
#40 ·
Right, yes, evil Bayer and their equally-evil neonicotinoid chemical, etc etc. But why is this a reason not to give the proposed, purely mechanical IPM device a try?

If it's all the same I'd personally rather wait to find out that it actually doesn't work before rejecting it.
 
#45 ·
Okay fine, but the point still stands - it's irrational to reject this treatment independently of its efficacy just because it's being developed by Bayer and Bayer also makes neonicotinoids. If you're sinking in quicksand and somebody holds out a pole, you don't refuse the help and drown just because the guy who offered it is that one jerk who always cuts in the cafeteria line.
 
#44 ·
> Any idea where or if the Bayer product is avalible yet??

Bayer has not even figured out which chemical they intend to use as an acaricide in the BeeGate / VarroaGate yet:

Scientists are still fine-tuning the formulation and application rate, and are testing two Bayer substances on bee populations in the field at various concentrations.

http://beecare.bayer.com/media-cent...w-way-of-protecting-bees-against-varroa-mites
Then they have to do field tests to support their EPA paperwork, and wait for the EPA bureaucracy to wake up and get of its collective butt.

It would be quite amusing if the chemical that Beyer finally settled on was .... oxalic acid! :eek: :lpf:
 
#47 ·
I think one of the first prototypes was just a checkmite strip with a bunch of holes drilled in it. The idea isn't so much about a new chemical, it's about a better way to apply whatever the chemical is.

Keep the meds away from your combs, apply it in a smaller dose right on the mite, and protect against mites drifting into your hive from a neighbor. Probably not ready for migratory commercial use, but it's a nice idea and I'm sure some can make it work.
 
#52 · (Edited)
We had a Bayer bee expert give a talk to our regional beekeeper's association. Not saying I'm a fan of neonicotinoids or seeds laced with pesticides, and I think the big agribusiness corporations make us too dependent on their proprietary strains and chemicals, but I thought what he had to say was worthwhile. If nothing else, their "beetown" research center in NC uses a lot of research methods that I can use myself.

I expect they'd be crushed if somebody could design one of these things that used, say, powdered sugar instead of a patented miteicide (let's be honest ... pesticide), and could demonstrate that it works just as well.

Anyway, evidently Bayer is hitting the road with their "Second annual Bee Care Tour," and my wife and I plan to attend when they hit DC. I expect we'll learn something new.

http://www.bayercropscience.us/news/press-releases/2014/02062014-0018-bee-care-tour-launch
 
#53 · (Edited)
Oh, this little tidbit is fun. If I were working in Bayer's propaganda ... excuse me, public relations ... department, I think maybe I'd do a reality check on this before using it as a measure of commitment to bee research:

The Bayer Bee Care Support Facility will include:
Nearly 1,215 square foot building dedicated to
promoting and protecting bee health.

I'm sure if you are not numerically inclined and never bought a house, 1215 sounds like a large number. But 1215 square feet is about 35 ft by 35 ft. That would make a nice garage, although a little small for my tastes. Our log cabin is 1440 square feet, and I'd classify it as cozy. My new garage is almost 2000 square ft. in two stories.

I think this number applies to their old "Butler Building" at their NC bee yard. The new facility should be larger, and they really ought to update their "Bee Fact Sheet". And the real work is done outdoors by the bees, so the numbers of interest are numbers of hives and acres worked.

http://www.bayercropscience.us/~/me...ur-Commitment/documents/BeeCareFactSheet.ashx
 
#56 · (Edited)
The Bayer Bee Care Support Facility will include:
Nearly 1,215 square foot building dedicated to
promoting and protecting bee health.
The devils! How dare they try to convince us that they can promote and protect bee health from a measly 1,215 sq ft building! Preposterous!

It's akin to trusting a Beesource poster who only has 100 posts under his belt. Who, in their right mind would do that? Not me! Anything under 3,800 posts is cause for suspicion. :)
 
#54 ·
>Nearly 1,215 square foot building dedicated to promoting and protecting bee health.

My house is 5,200 square feet... my barn is 2,380...

>it's irrational to reject this treatment independently of its efficacy just because it's being developed by Bayer

You don't think their morality and values have an effect on the safety of their products and their honesty about that safety and their honesty about its effectiveness? I don't think it is that irrational to assume that people who have lied before will lie again. People who have marketed things that kill bees (pesticides), and people (see the list in wikipedia below) will again market something that is really not good for bees and may not be as efficacious as they would have you believe. It's hard to come up with too many companies that you could characterize as this evil based on their history.

They stole the formula for making aspirin in 1897 (it had been synthesized by various other scientist or groups between 1848-1869, long before Bayer claimed to have invented it)

They invented and marketed Heroin in 1895.

During WWI they made chemicals for gas warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I

During WWII they made chemicals used in genocide.
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bayer-nazi-role-article-1.701925

I forgot, they apologized for that one...

In 1956 the chairman of Bayer was convicted at the Nuremberg trials for “carrying out experiments on human subjects at Auschwitz, plunder, spoliation, slaver, and mass murder. “

Then there is a long list of products over which they have been sued which have now been taken off the market after they ended up being very dangerous, despite their research that they were not. And then there are allegations of defrauding the US and state governments… most of these are recent...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Controversies

And now they are courting the beekeepers who are suing them and sponsoring their conferences and trying to sell them more of their products...

I don't think it's irrational to not trust a company that has not proven trustworthy.
 
#57 ·
I may have turned that around a bit. Here is the quote from Wikipedia (with a reference to back it up):

"Nazi chairman
In 1956 Fritz ter Meer became chairman of Bayer's supervisory board. He was convicted at the Nuremberg trials for his part in carrying out experiments on human subjects at Auschwitz. He was found "guilty of count two, plunder and spoliation, and count three, slavery and mass murder" and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and served five years."

Maybe they made him chairman AFTER he was convicted and punished for being a slaver and mass murder and I misread it. The above is from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Nazi_chairman
 
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