Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
October 31, 2014, 02:23:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Forbes article about evidence based bee studies  (Read 1199 times)
D Coates
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1070


Location: Lee's Summit, MO


« on: March 14, 2013, 02:20:43 PM »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/03/13/bee-ing-smart-regulators-must-distinguish-activists-bad-dreams-from-actual-evidence/

No smoking neonicotinoids gun found here.  I'm glad some are bee-ing smart and not jumping to the knee jerk claims of the anti-neonicotinoid crowd but actually studying the scientific evidence.
Logged

Ninja, is not in the dictionary.  Well played Ninja's, well played...
Rurification
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 224


Location: Solsberry, IN


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2013, 04:52:53 PM »

Very interesting article.  Thanks very much for the link.
Logged

Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13768


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2013, 09:54:47 AM »

Neonicotinoids now permeate our food.  They are not an insecticide you can wash off of the food... what are the long term effects on HUMANS.  That's what I want to know...

Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
fshrgy99
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada


« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2013, 10:36:41 AM »

Good link, although I didn't realize I was being 'a knee jerk reactionary' Smiley Don't really see myself being swept up the enthusiasm of a crowd either  Wink

Here's a quote taken from an article accessed from a link in the article.

“From the data that I’ve seen, I’m not seeing any effect of exposure … to canola treated with clothianidin,” said Scott-Dupree, who led the field study with Chris Cutler of Dalhousie University.
 
Bees exposed to the insecticide produced virtually the same amount of honey as a control group of bees, said Scott-Dupree.
 
“A reduction in honey yield is an indication of overall poor colony health. If the pesticides are having an impact, the bees are not going to be foraging.”
 
The study comes at a time when European Union countries are banning or considering restrictions on three popular neonicotinoids: clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. Studies released last year in France demonstrated that bees exposed to thiamethoxam, a Syngenta product better known as Cruiser, were twice or three times as likely to die while foraging because they couldn’t find their way back to the hive.
 
A Scottish study demonstrated that colonies exposed to imidacloprid, a Bayer insecticide, produced 85 percent fewer queens than the control group.
 
The studies, subsequent reports and newspaper headlines compelled European politicians to respond. .
 
The European Commission recommended that EU countries prohibit the use of the three neonicotinoids in seed treatments and crop application for two years beginning this spring.
 
Bayer funded Scott-Dupree’s canola study at a cost of $950,000 in an effort to produce field scale data on clothianidin and its impact on bee health.
 
“That’s huge. That’s (for) a one year study,” she said.
 
“Last year it was the largest bee project that (Bayer) had going globally.”
 
Scott-Dupree and eight employees placed 40 bee colonies in 10 canola fields near Guelph last summer. Five canola fields had seed treated with clothianidin and five fields did not. The fields were 10 kilometres apart and five acres in size.
 
The hives were placed in the middle of the canola fields at 25 percent canola bloom, and the bees foraged on the canola for two weeks.



Now I know it's not scientific, but a local commercial beek told me he lost 50% of his hives last spring when the corn was planted. I have heard the dust from the pesticide coated seed (when planted by the seed drills) has resulted in high mortality ... and the study didn't measure those levels. Also I have seen a 5 acre field ... and I doubt four hives of bees is going to forage exclusively (tho I don't know nothin bout canola or what 25% canola bloom looks like ... so maybe the bees were in canola pollen heaven) in a 5 acre field. Y'all can decide for yourself.

The scientific study (In my non scientific opinion) seems a bit far from proving that there is no problem with neonics. I am not surprised that a study funded by Bayer would not measure the levels of pesticide in the dust created when planting.


Anyway, I am so close to Guelph! In fact, I'm taking a beekeeping course there end of April!  I don't think I'll be seeing Scott-Dupree but maybe I can find out what she's driving. ..... hope it's a pick up ... but I kinda doubt it Smiley If I hear anything about the study or neonics I'll share it here on the 'QT'. It won't be 'scientific' ... but it won't be kneejerk either (or funded by bayer).
Logged
D Coates
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1070


Location: Lee's Summit, MO


« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2013, 12:05:31 PM »

It's that guilt must be scientifically found to remove neonicotinoids from the market.  Doing so prior is knee jerk in my opinion.  What this article points out is that guilt has not yet been proven, nor does it appear the stars are lining up for it.  Australia leaves the glaring hole in the neonicotinoids guilt claims.  They've been using it there for years.  No massive die off claims there.  What is missing from Australia?  Varroa...

I'm not saying neonicotinoids are perfect but until the honeybee die offs are tied to it in a scientifically repeatably proven manner it's merely an unproven theory.  Pulling it off the market will mean a serious increase in insecticides that we DO know adversely affect honeybees.
Logged

Ninja, is not in the dictionary.  Well played Ninja's, well played...
10framer
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1541

Location: Butler,GA


« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2013, 12:15:29 PM »

i'd like to see the statistics that show what percentage of the massive die offs involve colonies used for migratory pollination.  i suspect that the rate is much higher among that group but let me say now i have nothing to back that up.
i think that bees moved from field to field are already under more stress than the average colony and that compromises them more.  just something to think about.
Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4287

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2013, 02:25:03 PM »

I don’t suppose it worries anybody that bumblebees exposed to neonics reduced colony growth and resulted in 85% less queens in scientific studies? 

http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/pollinators/pdf-BBcolony/2012Whitehorn.pdf

I’m not sure why some are so anxious to be lab rats with the unknown.     
Logged
10framer
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1541

Location: Butler,GA


« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2013, 02:38:31 PM »

both studies used pretty small samples in my opinion.  i'm close to hundreds of acres of cotton and sunflowers, i'll be making my own observations. 
i think that there is more of a perfect storm scenario playing out.  pesticides, mites, beetles, viruses and overworking the bees are good ingredients for a toxic soup.
Logged
fshrgy99
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada


« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2013, 04:12:16 PM »

It's that guilt must be scientifically found to remove neonicotinoids from the market.  Doing so prior is knee jerk in my opinion.  What this article points out is that guilt has not yet been proven, nor does it appear the stars are lining up for it.  Australia leaves the glaring hole in the neonicotinoids guilt claims.  They've been using it there for years.  No massive die off claims there.  What is missing from Australia?  Varroa...

I'm not saying neonicotinoids are perfect but until the honeybee die offs are tied to it in a scientifically repeatably proven manner it's merely an unproven theory.  Pulling it off the market will mean a serious increase in insecticides that we DO know adversely affect honeybees.


The article references French and Scottish studies that do tie bee mortality to the pesticides. How is it you can ignore those scientific studies?
(just wondering)
Logged
D Coates
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1070


Location: Lee's Summit, MO


« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2013, 04:37:17 PM »

The article references French and Scottish studies that do tie bee mortality to the pesticides. How is it you can ignore those scientific studies?
(just wondering)

Have the results been replicated?  I've not reviewed these studies, nor who did them but if was this easy to prove there would be hungry trial attorneys all over this.
Logged

Ninja, is not in the dictionary.  Well played Ninja's, well played...
fshrgy99
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada


« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2013, 06:00:51 PM »

The article references French and Scottish studies that do tie bee mortality to the pesticides. How is it you can ignore those scientific studies?
(just wondering)

Have the results been replicated?  I've not reviewed these studies, nor who did them but if was this easy to prove there would be hungry trial attorneys all over this.

You mean, nobodies suing so the studies must be flawed? It isn't enough that the neonics have been banned as a result of the studies? ... there must be litigation to demonstrate viability? Litigation against who? .. the government departments (staffed by ex bayer executives) that approved their use?  And if there is litigation ...what then ...'no convictions yet'?.... and if there are convictions then perhaps 'the appeals haven't been resolved yet'?

... just wondering

.... and in the meantime?

I haven't studied all the scientific reports but based on what I have been able to discover (while I'm waiting for duplication) I throw my hat in with 'the knee jerk claims of the anti neonicotinoid crowd' just to be on the safe side.

 cheer


Logged
tomofreno
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26

Location: NV


« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2013, 12:22:46 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/science/neocotinoid-pesticides-play-a-role-in-bees-decline-2-studies-find.html
Logged
Daniel Y
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 10

Location: Reno, NV


« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2013, 10:43:35 AM »

First and most obvious thing I noticed was that they claim the studies that lead to the European ban where cherry picked, and then they proceed to cherry pick studies themselves with an obvious pre conception.

I can then discount almost the entire article on this factor alone. they focus on losses so of bees due to Varroa and disease vectored by varroa. while the claim against Neonicitinoids is that they contribute to CCD.

Nobody has claimed that Nics are the cause of all bee losses. Comparing bees being kept in mountainous regions to those being kept in agricultural low lands is laughable. The Australia exports bees is no evidence of the health of those bees. The US exports bees also. so does Europe. Compare bees near fields with no use of nics to those that are near nics and lets see what those results are. But putting together comparisons that have nothing to do with each other in order to support claims is only evidence of intent to skew the facts for me.

Then they end with the age old and very tiresome claim about how crops cannot be grown without the use of these chemicals. Oh really? I wonder how they managed to do so for centuries without them? Hmmmmm? Scare tactics, smoke and mirrors. Just one more useless biased comment.

I don't buy all the claims of the Antis either. I just want the truth. and we are getting anything but.
Logged
Daniel Y
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 10

Location: Reno, NV


« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2013, 10:45:04 AM »

Duplicate post this forum format is screwy. what is with returning me to the home page after every post? Not like I chose a conversation to be in.
Logged
Daniel Y
New Bee
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 10

Location: Reno, NV


« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2013, 10:46:10 AM »

duplicate post
Logged
fshrgy99
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada


« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2013, 04:26:42 AM »



"Health Canada: Evaluation of Canadian Bee Mortalities that Coincided with Corn Planting in Spring 2012"


http://www.ontariobee.com/inside-oba/news-and-updates/health-canada-evaluation-of-canadian-bee-mortalities-that-coincided-with-corn-planting-in-spring-2012
Logged
D Coates
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1070


Location: Lee's Summit, MO


« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2013, 09:58:35 AM »

You mean, nobodies suing so the studies must be flawed? It isn't enough that the neonics have been banned as a result of the studies? ... there must be litigation to demonstrate viability? Litigation against who? .. the government departments (staffed by ex bayer executives) that approved their use?  And if there is litigation ...what then ...'no convictions yet'?.... and if there are convictions then perhaps 'the appeals haven't been resolved yet'?

... just wondering

.... and in the meantime?

I haven't studied all the scientific reports but based on what I have been able to discover (while I'm waiting for duplication) I throw my hat in with 'the knee jerk claims of the anti neonicotinoid crowd' just to be on the safe side.

 cheer

Staffed by ex-bayer executives...  So this is a "Big Pharm" conspiracy?  If there was any clearly understandable replicatable scientific support showing neonicotinoids as the culprit some claim them to be trial lawyers would be suing the Big Pharm in droves.  The fact that there isn't gives a strong hint that the case is not yet (possibly may never be) there.  Because there is no lawsuit doesn't prove it's flawed, but it proves the claims are currently half baked or not considered to be scientifically valid at this point.  The Sierra Club and others would be on this like white on rice if the case was this easy.  Assuming it is pulled, what about the required increased use of old school insecticides that are known to be much worse?  No one seems to want to address this.

If products were always pulled do to claims from various groups, we'd still be reviewing internal combustion engines and electricity before it would be considered "safe".  The human condition would never improve.  Some groups undoubtedly would like this but I submit living in a mud hut would get old quickly.
Logged

Ninja, is not in the dictionary.  Well played Ninja's, well played...
Michael Bush
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13768


Location: Nehawka, NE


WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2013, 02:26:45 PM »

Just because you don't catch Colonel Mustard in the Library with the revolver does not mean he didn't kill Mrs. Peacock with a gun.

The typical argument against neonics (and I think I made my case that we should be worried about long term effects on PEOPLE) killing bees is that you don't find high enough residues at the time you find the dead bees. There is no allowance for long term effects (on bees or humans).  There may no residue left when the bee that was killed by it dies, but that does not mean it was not (nor does it mean it was) the cause.  At this point in time, worldwide, there are BILLIONS of people raising food without chemicals, including millions in the US alone.  I would question claims about anything from people who, in the face of these facts, continue to claim it is impossible to do so.
Logged

Michael Bush
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--Rick Nielsen
D Coates
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1070


Location: Lee's Summit, MO


« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2013, 04:19:16 PM »

Indeed. However, innocent until proven guilty and the burden is upon the prosecution.  I hear you and I'm leery of claims on both sides.  Colonel Mustard is free to do as he wishes until he's convicted with admissible evidence in a court of law where he does get to defend himself.  Until this burden is met he's merely a suspect, along with cell phone towers, HFC, improperly used chemicals, solar flares, migratory stresses, diseases, etc. 

The long term effects horse is already out of the barn.  It's on the market.  Effectively testing for long term effects without introducing it?  Laboratory testing is never real world testing.  What long term time frame is acceptable, and how would you do that in a real world manner?  It's a chicken or egg argument.  They passed the USDA regs they were required to and it's now in the real world.

The US is the breadbasket of world because we do it the most efficiently.  This efficiency involves chemicals, increases yields and keeps costs down for everyone.  If it makes financial sense to raise crops with few or no chemicals farmers would switch, that's why they went to neonics in the first place.  Without neonics they're not going to risk their land and livelyhood on hoping insects don't arrive.  You can do so but they'll go back to the least expensive, most effective, pest control manner legally available.
Logged

Ninja, is not in the dictionary.  Well played Ninja's, well played...
fshrgy99
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 203


Location: Kitchener Ontario Canada


« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2013, 07:28:47 PM »

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/130319.html


http://www.ontariobee.com/sites/ontariobee.com/files/Evaluation%20of%20Canadian%20Bee%20Mortalities.ENG-1.pdf

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm

http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130322ca

etc, etc, etc

« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 11:28:37 AM by fshrgy99 » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.751 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page October 28, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
anything