Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Sacramento County, CA
    Posts
    875

    Default Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Hi everyone!

    Well, just read this article and it was kinda heart breaking.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/...-suggests.html

    https://news.utexas.edu/2018/09/24/c...-to-bee-deaths

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115

    The research originated from University of Texas and I have a high respect for them. Article was originally published in
    the National Academy of Sciences.

    We live on a ranch/farm and often use glyphosate out of necessity. We also just experienced a full 30% loss of our bees this summer.

    Ok, my million dollar question:

    I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.

    How can we know if the facts presented in this article are for real and based upon truth?

    Dang, UoT and PNAS appear to be fairly BIG NAMES in releasing accurate scientific research and data...

    After reading the article, I am concerned it may be spot on and perhaps we need to stop using glyphosate at our ranch and especially near our honey bee yards [we spray under our honeybee stands 2-3 times per year].

    Thanks,

    Soar
    Last edited by soarwitheagles; 09-25-2018 at 10:59 PM.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    BeeSource.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Wharton, Texas, USA
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    The ut article did not even mention varroa when speaking about other causes for bee decline which is suspect in my mind. I live along the gulf coast of Texas my friends are farmers they spray tons of it and Ive caught many swarms around them. I know of several thriving hives that have been established for years.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,393

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    For anyone who's interested in this paper, a .pdf copy of the article can be downloaded from:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ear...80115.full.pdf
    and a copy of the methods used:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/sup...80115.sapp.pdf

    I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.

    How can we know if the facts presented in this article are for real and based upon truth?
    There is no obvious prima facie reason (imo) to doubt the authors findings - bearing in mind that this is a laboratory experiment. Whether it has 'real-world' validity or not is quite another matter.

    "Facts" and "Truth" play no part in scientific research - it's about observation, evidence, and conclusions which may then drawn from them, etc.

    Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, and so tends not to be sprayed onto non-GM flowering crops - as doing so is guaranteed to kill them ! Glyphosate is used pre-sowing to clear weeds, and pre-harvest to dessicate crops, but at neither time should there be an abundance of 'weeds' in flower.

    The issue with this paper promises to be whether or not the scenario they tested is indeed realistic. Monsanto will undoubtedly disagree, as you'd expect.

    Spraying glyphosate around hive bases (especially after flying has finished for the day) is certainly a practice I'll be continuing with. If your losses are around 30%, then I'd recommend looking around for other causes ...
    LJ
    A Heretics Guide to Beekeeping http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    South Waikato New Zealand
    Posts
    205

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    I honestly have no idea if roundup/glyphosate is THE cause of the problems bees are facing.
    I do however think it is a contributing factor, along with all the other chemicals that are used-other herbicides,fungicides,pesticides,insecticides,arti ficial fertilizers,foliar sprays like copper on fruit trees.

    I have been told that, while studies have been done to insure these chemicals are safe to use, no study has been done on the effects of these when they combine, either on plants or in the soil.
    I pointed this out to the manager of a pine forestry nursery I worked at up until last year. the result was that he severely cut back on artificial ferts and spray within the nursery and outlying fields,including slow release ferts used in bed preparation for the next season.
    On top of that he also started applying bought in compost materials.
    My timeline is not quite straight here cos after I spoke to him about this, he also did a trial that showed areas that nothing was applied resulted in the best productivity for that year-last year.

    What I think people miss is that environmental health starts with the soil and the organisms that live in work in it.
    Plants have evolved to grow in, what I call a living soil- one that has the whole range of lifeforms in it.
    In that soil are a huge amount of different lifeforms-bacteria, molds, yeasts, fungus, insects-worms all need organic matter not people made fertilizers.
    Even the different layers of soil have different types compared to other layers.
    It wasnt that long ago, that you would spot wild mushrooms growing in fields, now there just aren't any.

    It is not just the bees that are starting to fail health-wise; its us too. There are now pages of different auto-immune disorders that people are now having to deal with.
    I used to think our species was a lot more tolerant of chemical overloads than others, I now think it has just taken longer to see the same devastating results.

    Its a hard call when you have land that you need to deal with pests, be they weeds or insect infestations, especially when your livelihood depends on a good harvest.
    The best I can advise, is to choose one spot where you can 'go organic'-either leave it to it own devises/use a less toxic remedy/choose a different crop.
    If time is not pressing,try to learn of other alternatives but also recognise that it does take time to get an local ecosystem back in balance and that it may appear to be worse off in the early stages before it gets better.
    So one small area to start off with, so you dont go broke 'trying to fix the world'.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    5,208

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by soarwitheagles View Post
    Hi everyone!

    I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.
    post your question on bee-l and maybe Randy O or one of the other people that know more about it can give you an accurate answer.

    seems someone beat you to it. here is Jerry Bromenshanks(sp) comments.

    >Nice high school
    science project, but hardly robust, and how does glyphosate compare with
    other herbicide choices?<

    Am I the only one who shudders every time I see an article that starts with the phrase 'field-realistic doses' in the title? Jerry
    mike syracuse ny
    Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Ronald Reagan

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    I'm a microbiologist/immunologist by profession, work in a department with people who study bee microbiota, and have some microbiotia/probiotic research ongoing in my lab (relating to heart disease, not bees), so perhaps I can shed some light.

    TLDR: The results are interesting, but at best, the only concussion the data reasonably supports is that bees which never have been exposed previously to glyphosate may have a short-term increased risk of dying from bacterial infection after their first glyphosate exposure.

    Long version:
    The study used standard microbiota-measuring methods, but otherwise have some serious flaws in their study design and interpretation. There are also some red flags suggesting that some of their results are spurious (e.g. statistical noise).

    Methods
    1. The dose of glyphosate used is high - they tested two doses - one at the high-end of what the studies they quoted as realistic field exposures, and the other exceeded the maximum reasonable estimate of field exposure by 33%. So they basically tested the worst-case-scenario and something far worse than the worst-case-scenario.
    2. Their study duration was short. In most long-term studies, microbiota are astoundingly resilient, with most microbiota-changing insults only producing a temporary change. In most cases, the microbiota return pretty quickly to normal after an insult. They only looked at days 0, 3 and 5 - far too short a time to allow for any recovery or adaptation of the microbiota to glyphosate.
    3. The pathogen used to test for an effect was an odd choice, as was the infection method; Serratia is a relatively rare pathogen of bees, and they hatched sterile bees (i.e. bees without normal microbiota development) for these experiments. I don't know the bee immune system very well, but birthing mammals sterilely profoundly impairs their immune system.


    Results
    The results have a number of red flags. I've not yet found a good way to explain this in lay language, so my apologies if this is not clear. There are a number of changes that are observed that are problematic - four in particular are especially concerning:
    1. Whole-microbiota stats are lacking; stats were only performed on individual species
    2. There are several cases where there is a lack of dose-dependence - i.e. the lower dose causes a larger change in the microbiota composition than the higher dose, or only the lower dose causes a change.
    3. These changes occur in samples which show high variability
    4. Similar bacterial species do not respond to glyphosate in a similar manner.

    These all point to a serious flaw in their analysis which throws a lot of the data into question. Here's where things get hard to explain...The way microbiota analysis is conducted is called "multi-variate analysis" (multiple variable analysis), with the abundance of each species representing a separate variable. The very first step in these analyses are that you run a statistical test which asks "is there a statistically significant difference between the net change in the microbiota between my treatment groups" - i.e. you test to see if the combined changes across all species together is different between the doses of glyphosate.

    If the answer to that question is 'yes', then you go on and do sub-group analyses - i.e. you ask which specific species are changing in response to glyphosate.

    If the answer to that question is 'no', then your analysis is done. By definition there are no differences to be found, so performing a subgroup analysis is irrational.

    This paper didn't perform that first test, and jumped straight into subgroup analysis. And the results of those sub-group analyses are exactly what you would expect to see if you perform a subgroup analysis when the result of the first test is 'no differences in the microbiota'. The lack of a dose-response and randomness of where significant changes are observed (e.g. related species which should behave similarly, are observed to behave differently), are all hallmarks of the kinds of spurious associations you expect to see when subgroup analyses are performed improperly.

  8. #7

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    There is some pretty knowledgeable discussion about this research on Bee L.
    Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. - Emerson

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,693

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    We can beat around the bush a lot.

    Chem companies will make more money.
    Lab people will get more grants (including from the chem companies).
    Average American Joe will keep looking for a magic, quick-fix pill from every bug, weed and sickness under the sun (the pill that does not exist anyway - so stop looking and stop killing everything still left alive).
    Chem companies will make more money (because, hey, Joe keeps wanting those magic pills; supply meets demand).
    Lab people will keep arguing and get more grants (including from the chem companies).

    Meanwhile, it is really very simple - don't put stuff into the nature that does not belong.
    Crap does not belong there - don't put it out.
    Round-up does not belong.
    Ditch the crap.
    That simple and common sense.
    What is there not to see?
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    That simple and common sense.
    What is there not to see?
    "What is there not to see"...apparently you are blind to your own biases and lack of knowledge. Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people. The choice isn't chemicals versus nature; the choice is chemicals versus massive human starvation and death. And, given the alternatives, round-up is as good as its going to get. The alternatives are far more toxic and far more damaging to the environment.

    As for your implication that scientists like myself are all corrupt and interested in nothing more than grant money - you're talking from a position of absolute and total ignorance that is so far removed from reality to be laughable...or it would be laughable if there wren't people out there dumb enough to
    believe opinions like yours.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Allen, Texas, USA
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    This has been widely known for at least a DECADE, nothing new here.

    Exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides and systemics does not kill individual bees, but impacts colony health as a whole leading to eventual collapse. Manufacturers are not required to perform extensive studies by a third party - they test themselves and submit whatever results they want to EPA. They test individual bee mortality, not colony health and vitality.

    Europe figured it out in early 2000s. We have figured out in 2012 (Harvard Study). Here we are in 2018 still acting surprised, blaming pests, genetics and seasonality without addressing the root cause. Unless enough people make enough noise to make EPA do a 180 in current political climate of anti-environment posture, nothing will change.

    Until then, all you can do is make a personal decision to garden organic and educate your family, friends and neighbors.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Dane County, WI, USA
    Posts
    2,693

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuiGeneris View Post
    "What is there not to see"...apparently you are blind to your own biases and lack of knowledge. Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people. The choice isn't chemicals versus nature; the choice is chemicals versus massive human starvation and death. And, given the alternatives, round-up is as good as its going to get. The alternatives are far more toxic and far more damaging to the environment.

    As for your implication that scientists like myself are all corrupt and interested in nothing more than grant money - you're talking from a position of absolute and total ignorance that is so far removed from reality to be laughable...or it would be laughable if there wren't people out there dumb enough to
    believe opinions like yours.
    Look,
    1)already produced food consumption is to be optimized so to improve its current 50% (if that) efficiency,
    2)how excessive use of Round-up in US suburbia is even connected to food production? uh? - it is not
    3)... I could continue but no time for this now.

    Yes, keep telling some of us here how dumb we are and so we MUST keep using glyphosate and the like in the USA suburbia, golf courses (and under the beehives too) ELSE poor people in Namibia will run out of food.
    Wait? What?

    Food production for the starving?
    Chicago suburban homes use an average of 8.1 LB/acre vs. farmers spraying soybean use 2.1 LB/acre
    Source: https://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eh...xposed%3F.html
    Last edited by GregV; 09-26-2018 at 10:09 AM.
    Former "smoker boy". Classic, square 12 frame Dadants >> Long hive/Short frame/chemical-free experimentations.

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Allen, Texas, USA
    Posts
    38

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by SuiGeneris View Post
    Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people.
    Is that a fact or an opinion? Is it a fact that RoundUp is required to feed ALL 7 billion people or an exaggeration of truth? I hear Europe does just fine after banning several Bayer products. Also, let's not forget that there was "no way to control mosquitoes without DDT" not too long ago.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    Look,
    1)already produced food consumption is to be optimized so to improve its current 50% (if that) efficiency,
    False. ~70% of all food produced is utilised. The major causes of loss are, in the developing world, field losses to pests (which can be prevent by...you guessed it - chemicals!) and storage losses. In the developed world, the primary source of loss is people not consuming what they buy. But even if 100% of all current production reaches the consumer, current production would only carry us through to ~8.5 billion people - AKA 2030, or 12 years from now...so not only do we need the tools we have now, but we need to make them better if we want to keep people fed.

    So not exactly a good argument against the use of modern practices and tools, given that we're barely making ends meet now, and even with 100% efficiency, would only get us through the next decade.

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    2)how excessive use of Round-up in US suburbia is even connected to food production? uh? - it is not
    Poor regulation and bad practices in your neighbourhood is hardly justification for banning a valuable farming tool. I'm not in the US - here roundup//glyphosate can only be used by certified individuals for a limited range of applications (farming, remediation, etc).

    So maybe the answer is smarter regulations and using chemicals in a more judicious manner, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Quote Originally Posted by GregV View Post
    3)... I could continue but no time for this now.Yes, keep telling some of us how dumb we are and so we MUST keep using glyphosate OR we run out of food.
    What you just said.
    Given that your first "evidence" was out-and-out wrong, and your second one was irrelevant, I'm not sure how you demonstrated anything other than what I said - your position is one based on ignorance (or perhaps denial) of the facts. Your entire argument is predicated on "facts" easily shown to be falsehoods and insults against those who reveal facts that run contrary to your beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by hypsin View Post
    This has been widely known for at least a DECADE, nothing new here.
    We have figured out in 2012 (Harvard Study).
    Psst, imidacloprid is not roundup. If you're going to cite a paper you claim supports the "fact" that glyophosate is known to be bad to insects you may want to read it first to find out that the paper is actually about...you know...glyphosate. Imidacloprid is an insecticide - it targets and kills insects. Glyophosate is an herbacide, and not even chemically related to imidacloprid.

    In regards to organic farming, it isn't all roses and butterflies. By most measures of impact, organic is worse than conventional. Its slightly better in terms of energy use than conventional for milk production and cereals, and has a slightly lower CO2 emission for fruits. But it fares worse than most other measures of impact, across all other classes of crops, in terms of land use, soil depletion, water contamination and water acidification:

    From: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...26/aa6cd5/meta

    The reason generally organic fares worse than conventional is four-fold: 1) yields are 20-50% lower, so more land (and thus more driving of tractors, thus more energy consumed) is needed. 2) organic farming eschews synthetic fertilisers with high nutrient density, large amount of low-density manure, mineral and compost is used instead. These don't penetrate the soil well, and are applied in larger amounts, and thus have a higher risk of contaminating water due to run-off and wind. 3) Contrary to the claims of the organic lobby, organic farming does use a number of chemicals in their practices; especially on large-scale farms. These chemicals are "natural" (e.g. mineral-based anti-fungals like cupric sulfate), and are much more environmentally damaging than their newer, synthetic replacements. 4) Chemicals like glyphosate enable modern farming techniques such as no-till. These greatly reduce soil erosion, nutrient loss and the need for repeated chemical additions.


  15. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Covington County, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,467

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Just to make certain I am reading the study correctly:

    They used bees from a SINGLE hive.

    15 bees were painted in each study group.

    The bees were directly fed glyphosate. (Not real world, environmental exposure)

    Their guts were "perturbed."

    No bees were initially killed.

    They introduce a pathogen which kills 50% the bees in the control group and 90% of the bees in the test group.

    They repeat the process with similar results 3 times (using a single hive, with 15-bee test groups.)

    My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive?

    Maybe someone will expound on this study with something more substantial and real-world. Until then, I reserve judgment.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Tampa FL USA
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,393

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Bringing suburbia and golf courses into the discussion is a Straw Man tactic.

    Hunger and death from starvation is Nature's way of keeping all animal populations under control - but we clever (but not very wise) over-brained monkeys have learned to largely control our food supply so that the human population has significantly increased since the development of artificial fertilisers and the adoption of industrial-style farming. Mono-cropping - which has become essential to meet society's needs - requires the use of all sorts of chemicals to remain viable: pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on ...

    The idea that you could suddenly stop using this chemical-based method of farming and adopt organic farming methods is naive. If you were able to somehow reduce the human population to that of the Victorian era, this might indeed be possible - but I can't really see such a reduction ever happening.

    Too many people on the planet - that's the core problem.

    LJ
    A Heretics Guide to Beekeeping http://heretics-guide.atwebpages.com/

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by psm1212 View Post
    Just to make certain I am reading the study correctly:

    They used bees from a SINGLE hive.

    15 bees were painted in each study group.

    The bees were directly fed glyphosate. (Not real world, environmental exposure)

    Their guts were "perturbed."

    No bees were initially killed.

    They introduce a pathogen which kills 50% the bees in the control group and 90% of the bees in the test group.

    They repeat the process with similar results 3 times (using a single hive, with 15-bee test groups.)

    My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive?

    Maybe someone will expound on this study with something more substantial and real-world. Until then, I reserve judgment.
    More or less right, although (as I poorly stated in a previous post) its not actually clear that their guts were perturbed as they never did the statistical test that would have actually shown that.

  19. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by nhoyt View Post
    Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?
    I cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not.

    I'm going to assume it is...us silly humans doing things nature didn't intend. Like having most of our kids live past childhood, not suffering life-long and debilitating infections, and the most unnatural of unnatural - cheese.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    syracuse n.y.
    Posts
    5,208

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by psm1212 View Post
    My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive?
    .
    because then they wouldn't get the results they want.
    mike syracuse ny
    Whatever you subsidize you get more of. Ronald Reagan

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Lambton Shores, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    268

    Default Re: Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?

    Quote Originally Posted by wildbranch2007 View Post
    because then they wouldn't get the results they want.
    More likely its practicality and budget. Field trials are very expensive, especially if you want to do them right. Small-scale lab studies are easier to perform in a controlled fashion, but obviously come with limitations.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •