Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

The Australian distraction

57K views 157 replies 29 participants last post by  BlueDiamond 
#1 · (Edited)
Australia provides a very useful smokescreen for the pesticide lobbyists because:

a. It's very far away
b. It's very big - 6th largest country in the world -7,690,00 sq km
c. Very few Americans have been there
d. Beekeeping there is largely 'bush-beekeeping' - in wild country

The honeys which are most-valuable from Australia are wild-floral honeys like acacia, manuka, eucalyptus, bush mallee, myrtle, meadow honey and a dozen others. About 90% of Australia's landscape is 'wild' - the great centre of the country is either desert or bush. Relatively little beekeeping is concerned with pollination of arable crops. Many beekeepers, according to Jeffrey Gibb, live solitary lives, ranging through the wild bush, collecting wild honey for sale. So, exposure to neonics is probably only in those areas where wheat, canola are grown and of those only neonic treated canola probably presents a real threat.

So, most of Oz beekeepers have little contact with neonics. The ones who run migratory pollination businesses in arable crop areas, like Warren Jones - are suffering large losses.


From The Buzz About Bees website run by Amanda Williams:

It is often claimed (by the pesticide industry) that Australia's honey bees are healthy despite the fact that neonicotinoids are used there.

The question is raised: “If neonicotinoids kill bees, why aren’t Australian beekeepers losing theirs?” or “Neonicotinoids are used in Australia and they have healthy honey bees”.

So is this true? Is everything hunky-dory for Australia's honey bees?
What do we know about Australian beekeepers and their experience of neonicotinoids, honey bees and beekeeping?
In June 2007 a very revealing document was produce by Mr Warren Jones, President of the Australian Crop Pollinators Association - see right.

Warren Jones explains about his role:

“I am the President of the Crop Pollination Association Inc. This association represents the beekeeper pollinators that service agriculture's pollination requirements across a broad range of crops in all eastern states, Western Australia,Tasmania and NT. We provide representation to AHBIC, the peak body established to represent all sectors of beekeeping.”
You’ll see from the document that Warren Jones’ beekeeping experience and service to agriculture spans 34 years.

In relation to this issue, of particular interest was this comment:


Page 4

“There has been a wide use of neonicotinoids to treat a large range of pasture seed and other seed prior to planting, which includes most of our horticulture and vegetable production. Consequently our bees are continually in contact with neonicotinoids from the agricultural environment. We are finding it very difficult to maintain our hives at pollination strength, requiring an increase in use of young queens and replacement nucleus hives to maintain our hives”
By Autumn 2009, Warren Jones comments to The Australian Organic Producer in his article:
“Where Have All The Bees Gone?”: [/B]

http://www.bfa.com.au/Portals/0/BFAFiles/AUT09-where-have-bees-gone.pdf

In this article, he makes it very clear that he believes neonicotinoids represent a real threat to Australia's honey bees, and comments:

“Currently in Australia the demand has never been higher for bee pollination but until more control on the use of neonicotinoids is established available bee numbers are unlikely to improve."
He also points out that- one reason we have heard very little about the impact of neonics in Australia is that there is NO RESEARCH PROGRAMME OR RESEARCH INSTUTE STUDYING THE PROBLEM. Australia does not even have a bee-lab capable of detecting neonics at the ppb level.

“To be a successful crop pollinator you have to have full knowledge of how the chemicals being used in a crop could harm the pollinating bees. We have to use either our own personal experience or overseas studies as there is no current Australian research available,”
Meanwhile, Jeffrey Gibbs, in his article Neonicotinoid Pesticides: To Australian Beekeepers from an Australian Beekeeper[/B], highlights concerns about neonicotinoids and provides some interesting insight into why Australian beekeepers seem to be relatively quiet on this issue – or at least not making a major public fuss.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE HERE: http://pierreterre.com/blog/neonicotinoids-australia-beekeeper-jeffrey-gibbs-bee-dieoffs-related-nicotinoid-pesticides

Jeffrey's article has some interesting quotes too, such as:


“Last October, I was helping Jack Alt of Deepwater, New South Wales shift a sizable load of bees, from a NEONIC seed treated canola plot at Premer NSW. We were shifting the bees back onto clover, closer to Jack's home. Although the bees had been on a bumper crop of canola, Jack was disturbed that his load of 250 hives had suffered premature swarming, loss of queens, loss of bee numbers and dead-outs. Jack then replaced queens, kept working the bees (as we all would), and kept the load on clover for the next few weeks. I observed the same hives later on a Silver Leaf [Iron Bark] flow. In my opinion there were less than half the bees there should have been, or even less. This was Jack’s second Adverse Experience with his bees foraging canola over the last two years. I asked Jack: “Do you think that this may be because of the seed treatment on canola?” Jack replied, “I don’t think we’ll be working canola anymore.”

Jack is concerned about the (contamination with neonics) of the pollen of Turnip Weed and Salvation Jane coming up afterwards, in the same paddocks.”
(Jack is referring to the fact that neonicotinoids are highly persistent – i.e. they remain in the soil for years after the first planting. They can then be absorbed by other plants growing in that soil, and because they are systemic pesticides, they permeate the plant as it grows, and the poison may then be presented to bees and other non-target insects, through nectar and pollen, at toxic levels. This effect has been observed in scientific studies, such as Bonmatin et al 2004).

In September 2012, this Australian item was published on the net:
"Concern from beekeepers prompts review of some insecticides":


“Anxious apiarists have prompted the nation's chemical regulator to review regulations around insecticides used in the grains, cotton and vegetable industries. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinery Medicines Authority is examing those products which contain neonicotinoids, a relatively new class of chemicals used as seed dressings”.

Find it, by copying and pasting this link into a new web page:

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201209/s3591361.htm

So contrary to the view that Australia’s bees are having no problem with neonicotinoids, there is evidence that suggests otherwise. Seems like yet another argument to defend neonicotinoids that is not based in truth.

CONCLUSION
So let's see if the attack dogs respond to this by
addressing the issues
addressing the facts
engaging in reasoned debate

. . or are we back to personal attacks, harassment, invasion of privacy etc.

I think I can guess in advance what we will see.
 
See less See more
#54 · (Edited)
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Grondeau,

You say we live just below the toxic threshold of neonics: 1) Do you know what is the toxic threshold of neonics?; 2) Do you know what level we are currently at?

Also, you ask Mr. Palmer "what fraction of your bees forage on corn?": 1) Do you know what fraction of bees could forage on corn with no noticeable negative affects to the hive? 2) Do you know what fraction of total pollen in a hive can be corn pollen and the hive will still be healthy?

(BTW, I like your Date Trike, and I, too, spent a huge amount of time working on pulsed power systems for particle acceleration.)

Thanks.
 
#56 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

I suspect corn is not the first choice for bees. Krupke, in the middle of the corn belt, saw 45% of pollen coming in as corn pollen. I'm guessing if the bees have their choice between goldenrod and corn - they pick goldenrod. Nevertheless, the 4ppb in the pollen that Krupke reports -is roughly the same dose that kills bees outright in 30 days. If that's the stores my bees have for the winter, I would be concerned. Other places- I can't recall where right off the bat, I saw reports of bees bringing in up to ~80% corn pollen at some times.

From the Krupke paper:

Later in the season, pollen collected by bees when corn was shedding pollen in the area had up to 88 parts per billion (ppb) of clothianidin in it. These results suggest that there are many potential routes for exposure, but does not identify the key factor. We hypothesize that corn being planted nearby acts as a source of talc which may have contaminated flowers that bees were foraging on. Corn pollen from plants grown from treated seed had much less clothianidin, about 4 parts per billion. This is not enough to kill bees outright, but about 45% of the pollen our bees were collecting at that time was corn pollen. We do not know what effect this level of pesticide has on nurse bees that consume the pollen, or on the larvae they are feeding it to. Clothianidin is fairly stable in the soil with a documented half-life (the amount of time until half of the material is broken down in soil) of up to three years (EPA - 2003). After testing soil from various fields, we found that levels were just as high (about 9 ppb) in a field that had not had treated seed of any kind planted in it for the previous two growing seasons. Our overall conclusion was that the greatest danger occurs at planting time (due to the waste talc from planters), but that bees are exposed to sublethal levels of pesticide throughout the growing season. Our research paper is published online and is freely available (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268).
 
#69 · (Edited)
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Yes, it is the unfounded claims that are hurting the discussions of neonics. Making big but unsupported claims obfuscates the issues, and makes it much harder to figure out what is really happening to bees. Which, could possibly be the whole point of such posts, I guess.
 
#71 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Data, data, data! I want to see data! I don't care about analogies. I don't care about what some famous person said. I don't care about pretty language. I don't care about politics. I don't care that someone posted a million vacuous posts. I want to see good data produced by good science. If we don't have good data, then we can't make a good decision, and no amount of blah blah will change that. If we don't have good data, the next step is to generate good data, rather than jumping to premature conclusions.

JMHO
 
#72 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

I read it, and I read it carefully, and yes I picked up the condecending tone too. You seem to be fine ignoring the evidence that there's no smoking (puin intended) gun in Australia but seem to be quick to condemn others for not seeing the "evidence". I see the lack of Australian issues as evidence that neonic's are not the boogieman others claim.

You disagree, and post "...27 european countries ban neonics beginning December for 2 years." as evidence of guilt. Yet no guilt has been proven. If it was they wouldn't ban it for only 2 years. Then you move on to the sky-is-falling 3rd stage undiagnosed cancer reference..., (so by that thinking I have cancer until I prove otherwise?)

So be it, but you have some of the same blinders on that you are accusing others of having. Yours merely are blinded to the opposing evidence.
 
#79 · (Edited)
Re: The austrlian distraction

I would say that "I have no idea" is a response to a question, but is not an answer. But this is splitting semantic hairs. The fact remains that BorderBeeMan, after all his lengthy railing against neonics, turned out to be clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn - a result which is in direct contradiction to BBM's position that neonics as used in the field are deadly to bees. This shows that BBM has no idea what he is talking about, which was the main point. In other words, the emperor has no clothes.

I will say at least he was honest in professing his ignorance. That I can admire.

I, too, do not know what affect neonics is having on bees, but, I am not posting huge anti-neonic diatribes and making grandiose unsupported statements about the evils of neonics. I am simply trying to learn what is going on, and I quickly realized that BBM was little more than a fraud.

All in IMHO, of course.
 
#81 · (Edited)
Re: The austrlian distraction

.... clueless on how someone could have a high percentage of successful hives in an area surrounded by neonic-laced corn...
Me - too. I have no idea how MP did it because he refused to explain :( I guess, it is commercial secret... My point was that MP statement is not enough to think that all bees are doing OK in neonic fields. I was trying to explain my point of view on it, that such logic could not prove any statement. MP's operation is only 0.07% - he could not speak for everybody. That's it. That was my point.
 
#89 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

OK, this is getting circuitous.

From what I can tell by reading some of Michael Palmer, his bees do well because of good beekeeping. That's all.

The fact they are surrounded by neonics does not seem to affect them. Mike may or may not have some theories as to why, but really, he probably doesn't know, other than that the effect of neonics on his bees is not the sky falling down scenario that some claim it ought to be.

The reason this has got circuitous Cerezha, is you are constantly trying to work the argument around to the position that Mike has to explain why his bees are unaffected by neonics. But to repeat what has already been said, it is up to people who claim his bees should be affected by the neonics, to explain why their claims are being shown to be untrue in this case.

No reason Mike has to explain anything, least of all respond to comments with a "tone".
 
#92 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

OK, this is getting circuitous....
Oldtimer
I purposely do not touch neonics because we have a history of the hot "discussions" going nowhere. If Mr. Plamer's bees are doing 300% better than average (winterloss 10% vs 30%) it may be beneficial to 1399 other commercial operations to learn from Mr. Palmer's expertise - if everyone will have 10% loses, we could just forget neonics! I am trying to see a positive side in this story. :) Since, loses in average around 30%, to me it means that not so many people learned from Mr. Plamer's how to do a better beekeeping. But, yes, I agree - 10% loss is indication of good beekeeping practice and we all need to learn from Mr. Palmer. I personally, feel bad that did not manage to read any of Mr. Palmer's books or publications. My excuse is that I am a hobbyist and experiment with my bees in my own way. Right now, I am solving the problem, how my formerly nice bees in their anger managed to penetrate PM vented suit many times? My theory is that they regressed so much that their butts are small enough to get trough first mesh layer... or may be I unintentionally selected them to penetrate vented suit? :(
 
#90 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

. . . it is up to people who claim his bees should be affected by the neonics, to explain why their claims are being shown to be untrue in this case.

Yes, that is indeed the point!
 
#91 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.

Why should you?

If I made the claim, I would have to explain how it affects your bees, not demand you do.
 
#93 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

To explain it a bit different Cerezha, it would be like me claiming that your bees are affected by unseen microwaves. When you say your bees are fine, I then counter by saying, OK, well explain why they are not affected by microwaves then.....
Yes, it shows the difference in our thinking. If somebody tells me that it looks like my bees may be affected by microwaves from the antenna (!) recently installed near my place (details!) - than I would investigate the case to see if anything true in such statement. I would not claim that my bees are OK just because I think so. Than, until issue with microwaves resolved, I would insist to shut down the antenna - I need a proof that it is safe to me, my kids and, yes, my bees. This is how regulatory agencies work - it needs to be proven, that it is safe, not reverse. This is why EU banned neonics - the companies have two years to prove, that it is safe. Nobody is going to show that it is poisonous...
 
#97 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

:) you gotta get out into other Forums Sergey. I think this is pretty common knowledge written by Michael himself. Not that I know a lot about other beekeepers on beesource myself I guess.

Being a good beekeeper for perhaps 40 years helps too. Though I guess there are others who have been losing bees who have as many years experience as Michael.
 
#106 · (Edited)
Re: The austrlian distraction

I found no mention on the internet that bees imported to Canada from Australia arrived in Canada already infested with varroa mites.

The article linked below was published May 13, 2013 in Perth, and reports that Australian bees are currently still free of varroa mites, i.e. " . . . West Australia's biosecure bees, which are free of exotic diseases."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/local/wa/a/-/local/17107175/wa-bees-give-canadians-a-buzz/

The closest mention on the internet I found of varroa mites and Australia is the following article from November, 2012, about bees with varroa being found on boat docked in a Sydney, Austraila, harbor, but the bees were prevented from ever actually going ashore. Apparently, it was a wild swarm that had alighted in the ship's cargo hoist crane structure while the ship was in Singapore waters and then traveled to Austraila on the ship. " none of the bee or the varroa destructor mites escaped" I think means the swarm was exterminated on the ship. A close call for Australia's bees for sure.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3639182.htm

I would pressume, though, that it is just a matter of time before Australia's bees get varroa mites.
 
#115 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

It is a hard copy and I have no idea how to scan...
Well, I think, you are living in different universe :) ... paper letters (not E-mail) ... my daughters (and wife) use iPhone for everything including taking picture of anything and sending them anywhere... is it common in Australia to see 10 out of 10 people typing on their iPhones simultaneously in any place,any time of the day/night? I saw it in Mero in Russia and it is common in US. I have to admit that I do not have iPhone or similar. I have old cell-phone, which I do not use so often :(

My suggestion would be to find somebody with iPhone.:)
 
#119 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

You didn't. I did. Before the days of varroa what were your winterloss numbers like? 5 to 10%?

Alright Sergey I looked at a cpl of the News Reports about losses. I still didn't see what I wanted. The breakdown of what parts of the 30% loss are attributable to what causes.
 
#120 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

You didn't. I did. Before the days of varroa what were your winterloss numbers like? 5 to 10%?
Sorry for confusion. My point was that 10% loses are comparable to the loses without (before) varroa.

Alright Sergey I looked at a cpl of the News Reports about losses. I still didn't see what I wanted. The breakdown of what parts of the 30% loss are attributable to what causes.
In the light of THIS discussion, it is easy: 10% natural loss, not from neonics, not from varroa; 20% - non-best beekeeping practice, which may include everything including varroa, chemicals, pollination (transportation), stress etc.
 
#127 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

No idea I didn't write the reports. Better question is. How many acres did not get adequate bees to maximize pollination. My bet is all of them.
I know I saw at least one report on a broker that was not able to fill contracts for even long standing customers. How many acres did not get served. I do not know.
 
#130 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Oh. An all time record crop. What a surprise I thought there were stories everywhere.
Well actually there were lots of stories. Hindsight can help us judge how well balanced they were. I think it's a pretty safe bet that Dan Rather probably wont bring the cameras back to the Almond orchards to do a follow up on the nut set.
 
#131 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

In the light of THIS discussion, it is easy: 10% natural loss, not from neonics, not from varroa; 20% - non-best beekeeping practice, which may include everything including varroa, chemicals, pollination (transportation), stress etc.
I'm not sure you can call 'pre-varroa' natural losses. There were pesticide kills of colonies prior to varroa and neonics. There was AFB. There was PPB.

I think varroa and the viruses they transmit are a moving target when it comes to control. From the few anecdotal reports I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses.

Tom
 
#134 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

... I hear it sounds like the beekeepers that assume they have varroa and have adjusted the way they keep bees are successful. Those who state they treated for varroa and done things as they always have are sometimes surprised by large losses. Tom
Tom, I agree with you. As for "pre-varroa" I was trying to establish a threshold in attempt to determine what is "regular" lost without a varroa? As for varroa treatment, I read some very nice detailed report (sorry, no references - it is somewhere on beesource) comparing all our "tricks" against varroa including all chemicals, sugar powder, screened board etc. In my opinion, that report was very comprehensive and I do believe in it. They indicated that
(1) In Southern-Western part of US, ANY treatment is not effective.
(2) in Northern-Eastern US part - only 2 chemicals (I forgot the names) are approximately 10% effective.
(3) that's it!

In this sense, best beekeeping practice approach, is sounded more effective than chemical treatment alone, which is no surprise, right?
 
#133 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Almonds Update:

May 2013

The monthly shipment report was released today and California shipped 129.5
million pounds of almonds in April, down 12.8% from shipments of 148.5
million a year ago. Domestic shipments were up by nearly 13% to 51.3
million pounds, but exports at 78.2 million pounds were sharply weaker with
very few bright spots.

The Subjective Estimate was released last week forecasting the 2013 crop at
2.00 billion pounds. The market was uninspired by the news. A few weeks
earlier new crop had already been slated by a California exporter report at
1.96 billion. The Subjective seemed to confirm the outlook. Current crop got
a bump out of the new crop forecasts, but subsequently slipping back as
sellers emerged and buyers remained reticent.

http://www.skamberg.com/almonds.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that it is premature to make any conclusions regarding Cal Almonds-2013. As a commodity, almonds are subject of heavy "political/economical" games. It is absolutely not in the interest of almond producers to report decrease in the crop production. We will know the real situation next April, when supply will exhausted (hopefully not!)
 
#135 · (Edited)
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Almonds Update:

May 2013

The monthly shipment report was released.....
From the same article -

This is the exact same Subject Estimate as last May 2012, which was also at
2.00 billion pounds, but 6 percent above last year's actual production of
1.89 billion pounds.

Which is why the market was "uninspired".
 
#138 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Very possible. Won't know till full & final data comes out.

I just posted what I did, as what you selected to quote made it appear the harvest was smaller. But reading your quoted article in it's wholeness showed the harvest was not smaller.
 
#140 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Total production is useless. yield per acre is what you need to show.
Yeild per acre 2011, 2670 lbs. 2012 2560

In 2011 2.06 billion lbs of almonds where produced on 760,000 acres yet in 2012 only 1.98 billion lbs where produced even though ti was grow on 780,000 acres. 20,000 more acres required to keep the losses at only 80 million lbs.
 
#143 ·
Re: The Australian Distraction Defense

Ah - the beauty of numbers. And the way they can be selected to prove - whatever we want. :D

Such as you showing total production without mention of how many trees where needed to grow it? I in fact show lbs per acre. Just like dollars per hour. You cannot mislead with those comparisons. You then claim some sort of manipulation of numbers in hopes no one will sort at where the missleading is. You show only half a story believing that others will just make up the other half in agreement with your view. 1.98 billion lbs of almonds from 780,000 acres is in fact less almonds per acre than 2.03 billion lbs from 760,000 acres. can you see the manipulation in those numbers? Those are the numbers from 2012 and 2011.
 
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