Have you lost any colonies to pesticides in the last 3 years?

[Karol]

Fairly conclusive poll up to now, no problems with pesticides.

My understanding from talking to quite a few bee keepers is that losses of 5% to 10% is about normal.

Translating that over three years means a loss of 5% would roughly equate to 14.25% overall and a loss of 10% would equate to 27% overall (as some bee keepers will have experienced losses in more than one year).

At 36% this is close to 15% losses each year and that seems high to me in a 'managed' setting, i.e. because bee keepers will do whatever they can to minimise losses.

Far from showing that pesticides are not a problem, I think the poll shows that there are grounds to be concerned because there appear to be losses above the level that would otherwise be anticipated from 'natural' causes.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Yes its been a terrible season,far too much rain, expect there will be quite a few losses due to drone laying queens come next spring...last summer was also bad weather wise for many.

 

[Karol]

Agreed, however this poll is a rare example of one that is very simple and the result is very clear. However not what you're wanting to see, I suspect.

I can't agree with that. Colony death from overt poisoning will always be a rare accidental event and any poll which looks for this type of acute poisoning will always come back with a 'no problem' result.

It's far harder to identify chronic poisoning because other factors finish the hives off thereby masking the effects to the anecdotal on looker. To give you an example. Many lung cancer patients die from pneumonia. What was it that killed them?

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of colonies succumbing to varroa has increased as a consequence of sub lethal neonic poisoning. Why? Because sub lethal toxicity studies have shown an inhibition of proboscis function. It now turns out that bees manage varroa infections by biting and injecting anaesthetic into hive pests to eject them from the hive. It is entirely feasible that sub lethal poisoning could interfere with this pest cleansing behaviour resulting in an overwhelming varroa infestation. If that were to be the case, how many beeks would identify the root cause correctly?

How many beeks this year experienced queen mating problems? I'm convinced that's another symptom of sub lethal neonic (neurological) poisoning.

All down to the weather?

If I'm told so. I'm no expert.

So every time it rains, queen mating is doomed to failure.

Not a very hardy insect then?

Can't do well in the tropics then!

 

[Hivemaker.]

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of colonies succumbing to varroa has increased as a consequence of sub lethal neonic poisoning.

If I'm told so. I'm no expert.
So every time it rains, queen mating is doomed to failure.

So why were the bees being wiped out by varroa long before neonics were being used, and nearly all the feral colonies, in this area anyway.

Regards mating they need reasonably warm dry weather, above 18c for a few days at the right time, and only have a limited time in which they can get successfully mated....below average temperatures and rain nearly every day from april until the end of july does not help. Get the right weather conditions and there are no queen mating problems.

 

[Karol]

ETA: although since I have lost colonies to starvation, queen failure, nosema, and sheep in recent years, I had to vote for "Probably not - other cause of death more likely" to reflect that no losses showed any connection with pesticide usage.

Starvation, queen failue and nosema?

Is nosema to neonics as pneumonia is to lung cancer? Every living organism is constantly exposed to fungal spores. Fungal disease rarely kicks off as a primary infection - it's normally a secondary infection on the back of something else. Sub lethal poisoning can very easily explain a) a reduction in effective grooming/hygeine and b) an increase in gut transit time for faecal matter increasing the opportunity for spore germination. Nosema is definitely a possible symptom of sub-lethal toxicity.

Queen failure? Hmmmmm! Definitely possible symptom of sub-lethal toxicity.

Starvation? Hmmmmm! Definitely possible symptom of foraging failure due to sub-lethal toxicity.

Yep, all possibly due to other factors including poor bee keeping. BUT all equally symptomatic of chronic sub-lethal toxicity.

If it does turn out that neonics contribute to these effects and a ban is imposed, then don't forget it will take on average 5 half lives (i.e. up to 20 years) for neonics to dissipate. How many bad breeding seasons that would relate to only heaven knows.

 

[BeeJayBee]

My understanding from talking to quite a few bee keepers is that losses of 5% to 10% is about normal.

Translating that over three years means a loss of 5% would roughly equate to 14.25% overall and a loss of 10% would equate to 27% overall (as some bee keepers will have experienced losses in more than one year).

At 36% this is close to 15% losses each year and that seems high to me in a 'managed' setting, i.e. because bee keepers will do whatever they can to minimise losses.

I think most beekeepers refer to their colony losses pro rata, per annum. They don't add them up year on year like you seem to have done.

If somebody says they lose about 5% a year, they means 5% a year, not 15% over three years.

 

[Karol]

So why were the bees being wiped out by varroa long before neonics were being used, and nearly all the feral colonies, in this area anyway.

I'm not arguing that they weren't. The question is whether more are now being wiped out compared to before. That's much harder to differentiate unless beeks have been keeping comprehensive records.

Regards mating they need reasonably warm dry weather, above 18c for a few days at the right time, and only have a limited time in which they can get successfully mated....below average temperatures and rain nearly every day from april until the end of july does not help. Get the right weather conditions and there are no queen mating problems.

So how come the severe mating problems in dry climates reported in Greece? (I can't remember who posted that but it was on this forum) Again, it's the comparative position that's so hard to differentiate and I have vivid recollections of beeks talking about queen mating problems when we've had dry warm weather (albeit the outcomes not being particularly significant because of the number of successful matings mitigating the effects).

Inclement weather tightens the window of opportunity for successful mating. OK - that's understood. But inclement weather will also exacerbate the effects of poor mating performance. Look at it this way. The neurological symptoms of chronic sub lethal neonic poisoning are a bit like someone getting drunk. A drunk driver driving under optimal conditions is far less likely to get seriously totalled than the same drunk driver driving in adverse inclement weather. So, when there's heavy persistent rain it's naturally going to be harder for bees to coordinate mating behaviour. If they're 'drunk' is that going to make them more successful? I don't think so.

Again, if you're convinced it's just the rain then you've nothing to worry about.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Again, if you're convinced it's just the rain then you've nothing to worry about.

Karol, its been about the worst season in living memory regards the weather, but i am not at all worried, if i was, then i would be doing somthing else for a living.

Not been a great year for wasps either, compared to other years.

 

[Karol]

I think most beekeepers refer to their colony losses pro rata, per annum. They don't add them up year on year like you seem to have done.

If somebody says they lose about 5% a year, they means 5% a year, not 15% over three years.

And this is why this poll can be so easily miss construed.

I haven't added up the colony losses but I'm happy to explain what I've done statistically.

Assuming losses are 5% then out of 10,000 bee keepers in the first year, 500 bee keepers would have lost a colony and 9,500 wouldn't.

In the second year of the same 10,000 bee keepers, 500 bee keepers would already have experienced losses. The 5% losses would still divide across all of the 10,000 bee keepers so 5% of 500 bee keepers means that 25 bee keepers would experience a second colony loss. This means that 475 new bee keepers would have experienced colony losses for the first time and the total number of bee keepers experiencing losses over two years would be 975. In year three, 5% of 975 is 48.75 (i.e. 49 bee keepers). So, of 500 bee keepers experiencing losses in the third year, 49 of them would already have experienced at least one colony loss in the preceding two years meaning that 451 new bee keepers would have experienced a colony loss for the first time in the third year making a total of 1,426 bee keepers experiencing at least one loss over 3 years, i.e. 14.26%

 

[Karol]

Karol, its been about the worst season in living memory regards the weather, but i am not at all worried, if i was, then i would be doing somthing else for a living.

Not been a great year for wasps either, compared to other years.

Agreed but I'm not sure there's any relevance in that statement as mating cycles and behaviour are very different between the two. Wasps mate in autumn as late as early November (depending on the weather) so if queen mating failure was responsible for the decline in wasps then it would have related to last year's weather and not this year's weather. Wasp colonies are down by 90-95% this year. It could all be down to the weather but I doubt it. In the case of wasps I suspect that loss of set aside is having a major impact and because queen wasps directly consume large amounts of nectar in spring, they are vulnerable to neonics in a way that bee queens aren't.

Put it this way. Let's use the DEFRA nat stats of 19% neonic coverage. Assuming a queen wasp will fly up to 2 miles in search of food, she has a 1 in 5 chance of feeding on neonic nectar each time she feeds. Over a two week window it's highly likely she'll eventually become exposed to neonic nectar.

Taking a bee colony then the situation is very different. 20% of nectar and pollen would be diluted by 80% non contaminated nectar and pollen so the queen is naturally protected by this level of dilution. She will only therefore ever have to contend with low level sub lethal effects and depending on where the hives are located such as in the midst of protected moors, then the risks would be vastly influenced/reduced still further.

Time will tell. I really really hope I'm wrong. But it's more of a hope than a conviction.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Found a lot of moribund queen wasps under hive roofs this spring, more than i have ever seen before, the first thing i thought of was i bet you little rascals have been infected by neonics, but it also crossed my mind that it could be the change of weather from the unusually early hot march, suddenly changing to near freeezing cold wet weather at the start of april,and a complete lack of nectar secretion from flowers, lord knows where they could of found these neonics though,if thats what it was,the heather moors,gorse,grass around here are not treated with them as far as i am aware of.

 

[domino]

Far from showing that pesticides are not a problem, I think the poll shows that there are grounds to be concerned because there appear to be losses above the level that would otherwise be anticipated from 'natural' causes.

 

[Chris B]

lord knows where they could of found these neonics though,if thats what it was,the heather moors,gorse,grass around here are not treated with them as far as i am aware of.

I'll bet it was the flea powder your neighbour puts on his dog. That or those wasps have been on that GM beanstalk outside your house - the one that mysteriously appeared after the cow went missing.

 

[Skyhook]

Again, as Brossy sort of indicated, they may not even have to die to be affected by these insidious neonics - they may just fail to thrive - which may well have repercussions further down the line (perhaps pollination rates, if not poorer crops, etc etc.)

Certainly a dark or pale (can we still use the term 'black or white'?) outcome cannot be attained and any conclusion drawn would be jumped on by one side of the argument or the other. Just not as simple as spray damage as at post #2. Sprays and pesticides are not necessarily the same thing.

A local experienced beekeper of my aquaintance was convinced that his colonies weren't thriving due to drinking water contaminated by sprayer washings, and was trying to get the authorities to take action against the percieved culprit. Eventually he treated for nosema, and his bees sprung back to full strength.

 

[Karol]

A local experienced beekeper of my aquaintance was convinced that his colonies weren't thriving due to drinking water contaminated by sprayer washings, and was trying to get the authorities to take action against the percieved culprit. Eventually he treated for nosema, and his bees sprung back to full strength.

So was the root cause of the nosema ever established?

 

[Chris B]

So was the root cause of the nosema ever established?

I can't tell if this is a serious question or not.

 

[Karol]

I can't tell if this is a serious question or not.

Fungal infections are in the main secondary and not primary infections. Varroa is a common root cause of nosema.

 

[Chris B]

Okay I see what you're saying. I wouldn't word it like that though. There is no root cause of nosema except nosema. But some bees will be more susceptible for various reasons - the most significant being genetic. Many bees have nosema but show no symptoms.

 

[Skyhook]

Okay I see what you're saying. I wouldn't word it like that though. There is no root cause of nosema except nosema. But some bees will be more susceptible for various reasons - the most significant being genetic. Many bees have nosema but show no symptoms.

 

[Skyhook]

ETA: although since I have lost colonies to starvation, queen failure, nosema, and sheep in recent years,

This is a new one on me- what is the best way to monitor a hive for sheep?

.