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

[Into the lions den]

Hive losses from the poll are running at about 36% across all categories. I have no idea whether that is significant but given that it's over the past three years it doesn't include this year's weather effects on over wintering survival. That to me is interesting and needs a little quiet reflection.

Thats the point I was getting at.

1. The losses are not cumulative, empty ones are replaced each year, so a normal beekeeper with 100 hives will lose 5% (more if he/she is honest and includes total duds) on average each year, but after 3 years will still have 100 hives, having refilled the ones that died.

2. The pattern is not generally elevated long term.

3. Percentage of respondents indicating hive loss does not equate in any way to actual percentage of hive losses. The UK average of hives per owner is 6, and these beekeepers could have lost anywhere from 1 (which would be common) to 6 (which would be rare).

Bigger outfits like ourselves do not have the time to cull ALL the poor queen situations in autumn so our winter losses from queen failure will be higher than the average. In the last three years I have had nil losses attributable to pesticides, and yes I include non acute cases in this. (Acute in its medical meaning is an often misunderstood and misused word.)
Have I had any analyses done to prove this? No, and no reason why I would go to that expense to get confirmation of something I already knew.

Poor, drone laying, or absent queens are our main loss reasons (we call queenless and drone layers losses btw).

Varroa weakening is also a big issue.

Nosema is next.

In small colonies in wooden hives isolation starvation also sometimes happens.

All other reasons are minor causes.


Varroa is the interesting one. Whilst the years with the most spectacular losses were pre varroa and pre neonics, it has undoubtedly caused us a lot of issues. Currently we have it fairly well under control (an overly smug thing to say when dealing with varroa) but some years it has lead to serious levels of losses. It is the No1 problem from which other health issues flow, either directly or indirectly.

As for the bug? Well at least today I know which way to point in the small room.......

 

[DanBee]

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).

As others have ably noted, losses are made up during the season, and to count them as cumulative year-on-year losses is absurd.

At 36% [beekeepers reporting losses] this ... 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.

This is well into "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" territory. You are equating the number of beekeepers reporting losses to the survival rate of individual overwintering colonies, and then using this to conclude that neonics are a problem. Given past exchanges relating to rigour of data and statistics, I cannot believe that you are doing this innocently.

Please stop this desperate search for correlations. You are clearly operating far outside of your understanding and experience of bees and beekeeping, yet you seek and find "evidence" for harm caused by neonics at every turn.

I voted once for the "Probably not - other cause of death more likely", and of the ~120 colonies I took into last winter, I lost nine directly to sheep. You probably believe they were weakened by neonics; I am rather more inclined to put it down to the farmer who left the wrong gate open...

 

[Karol]

As others have ably noted, losses are made up during the season, and to count them as cumulative year-on-year losses is absurd.

Sigh!

Get a grip will you DanBee.

The question that the poll specifically asks is for beeks to report any losses over the preceeding three years. Some beeks will have had losses in one of the three years, some beeks will have had losses in two of the three years and some will have had losses in all three years. Given the way that the question was asked you would not expect the beek who had three consecutive years worth of losses to have voted three times would you?

This is well into "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" territory. You are equating the number of beekeepers reporting losses to the survival rate of individual overwintering colonies,

I'm not equating anything to anything. I'm just highlighting the 'uncertainties' in the design of the poll and that the poll is insufficiently sensitive to detect underlying problems that could manifest themselves through other symptoms.

and then using this to conclude that neonics are a problem. Given past exchanges relating to rigour of data and statistics, I cannot believe that you are doing this innocently.

???

Please stop this desperate search for correlations.

Hardly desparate. The science is pretty unambiguous. It's the interpretation and 'spin' that's out there that clouds the issues not least beeks arguing that neonics are safe by their own experience when in fact their colonies are 'exposure lite'. Wonder what the story would be if their exposure became 'exposure heavy' like what has been seen in other countries? After all neonics aren't the most prevalent pesticide in the UK so you can't say that neonics have improved the safety profile on bee exposure to pesticides. That's probably more to do with improved pesticide practice on a generic level over the past 20 years resulting from better informed eco-awareness.

You are clearly operating far outside of your understanding and experience of bees and beekeeping, /quote]

Agreed.

yet you seek and find "evidence" for harm caused by neonics at every turn.

I'm not actively seeking evidence. I've just reviewed what this forum has presented and done one or two rudimentary level searches. I haven't done any serious data mining. Haven't needed to. My expertise is pharmacology and clinical trials. That's allowed me to review the evidence as presented. That's why I changed my stance from sitting on the fence to siding for a ban. Thereafter I've tried patiently to explain the difficulties in identifying the effects of neonics in whole population field settings and what to look out for. If you're not seeing the effects then that's great and you don't have a neonic problem.

I voted once for the "Probably not - other cause of death more likely", and of the ~120 colonies I took into last winter, I lost nine directly to sheep. You probably believe they were weakened by neonics; I am rather more inclined to put it down to the farmer who left the wrong gate open...

My take on this is that that's probably not a good example to use as a boast of the level of your observational skills in differentiating the expected effects of sub-lethal neonic poisoning from confounding natural causes.

 

[Chris Luck]

I voted once for the "Probably not - other cause of death more likely", and of the ~120 colonies I took into last winter, I lost nine directly to sheep. You probably believe they were weakened by neonics; I am rather more inclined to put it down to the farmer who left the wrong gate open..

Yeah but......

Chris

 

[Karol]

Varroa is the interesting one. Whilst the years with the most spectacular losses were pre varroa and pre neonics, it has undoubtedly caused us a lot of issues. Currently we have it fairly well under control (an overly smug thing to say when dealing with varroa) but some years it has lead to serious levels of losses. It is the No1 problem from which other health issues flow, either directly or indirectly.

That's why I found ShaneR's new thread so interesting; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20080389

Anything which inhibits the ability of bees to santize themselves will increase the risk of serious varroa infestation. Clearly, treating with anti-varroals will help relieve the problem but anti-varroals themselves also have an associated cost/risk.

 

[DanBee]

that's probably not a good example to use as a boast of the level of your observational skills in differentiating the expected effects of sub-lethal neonic poisoning from confounding natural causes.

Again showing how little you know about beekeeping. How frequently do you inspect hives in a sheltered supposedly livestock free winter apiary site during January?

BTW, it was the tufts of wool that gave it away. Perhaps we could have tested them for lanolin and then concluded that lanolin is toxic to bees...?

 

[Karol]

Again showing how little you know about beekeeping. How frequently do you inspect hives in a sheltered supposedly livestock free winter apiary site during January?

BTW, it was the tufts of wool that gave it away. Perhaps we could have tested them for lanolin and then concluded that lanolin is toxic to bees...?

And your point is?

 

[Into the lions den]

That's why I found ShaneR's new thread so interesting; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20080389

Anything which inhibits the ability of bees to santize themselves will increase the risk of serious varroa infestation. Clearly, treating with anti-varroals will help relieve the problem but anti-varroals themselves also have an associated cost/risk.

It interesting, nothing more at this time.

Only some strains of bee do the biting of varroa, some do not. Was the case all the time. Not heard of it being diminished since the arrival of neonics.

Not really clear if it is an advantage or not, some swear it is, some think not. ( Complex reasons no need for introducing another twist into an already convoluted thread.)

 

[Into the lions den]

I'm not equating anything to anything. I'm just highlighting the 'uncertainties' in the design of the poll and that the poll is insufficiently sensitive to detect underlying problems that could manifest themselves through other symptoms.
.

This critical review of the poll misses the point. The person posting it asked the question THEY wanted to ask, and are presumably getting the answers they wanted. No point in citicising it because it does not go into the detail you wish to see to analyse for the potential patterns linked to neonics you are keen to explore. It was not designed for that.

If you want the information in the way you would prefer to see it then do a poll of your own with the questions you wish asked.

There is much the poll cannot ever tell you due to uncertainties other than this.......colony deaths thought by the beekeeper to be pesticide linked are actually precious few.

In general you are dealing with non scientists here..............in some ways thats an advantage, as we do not get all paralysed with detail..........but of course its also true that we could miss a minimal effect that properly designed experiments might pick up............but in doing that we would not have time for all the beekeeping.

 

[Karol]

This critical review of the poll misses the point. The person posting it asked the question THEY wanted to ask, and are presumably getting the answers they wanted. No point in citicising it because it does not go into the detail you wish to see to analyse for the potential patterns linked to neonics you are keen to explore. It was not designed for that.

I'm not criticising the poll just rebutting some of the 'conclusions' drawn by some posting on this thread.

 

[Karol]

It interesting, nothing more at this time.

Only some strains of bee do the biting of varroa, some do not. Was the case all the time. Not heard of it being diminished since the arrival of neonics.

I suspect it's too left of field for anyone to have looked into.

Not really clear if it is an advantage or not, some swear it is, some think not. ( Complex reasons no need for introducing another twist into an already convoluted thread.)

I can see why it might be of interest commercially if the strains that bite are naturally more resistant.

 

[Karol]

This is interesting. Regional variation in losses and losses running at 13.6% overall are sited as being particularly high over the last four years. You'll also note the use of the term 'tipping point'. Nice to see that I'm not the only one using the term.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00446.pdf

 

[DanBee]

TYou'll also note the use of the term 'tipping point'. Nice to see that I'm not the only one using the term.

It's a common phrase

 

[Into the lions den]

I suspect it's too left of field for anyone to have looked into.

Actually varroa biting been a field of interest to a considerable number of beekeepers and researchers for quite some years.

There is some evidence that it leads to a minor increase in varroa resistance. There is no evidence to suggest this is commercially significant.

Indeed many of the strains that deal aggressively with varroa lose vigour as a side effect and are LESS commercial that those that do not bite and excavate varroa.

 

[mbc]

Actually varroa biting been a field of interest to a considerable number of beekeepers and researchers for quite some years.

There is some evidence that it leads to a minor increase in varroa resistance. There is no evidence to suggest this is commercially significant.

Indeed many of the strains that deal aggressively with varroa lose vigour as a side effect and are LESS commercial that those that do not bite and excavate varroa.

It is very nice though, to think of the little s..ts getting a hard time from the bees

 

[Into the lions den]

It is very nice though, to think of the little s..ts getting a hard time from the bees

Oh yes...........I love to hear the crunch.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

This is interesting. Regional variation in losses and losses running at 13.6% overall are sited as being particularly high over the last four years. You'll also note the use of the term 'tipping point'. Nice to see that I'm not the only one using the term.

Regional variations can be down to many differences - whether the local association is good at getting the message out about treating varroa for example. Whether local bee supply shops were selling the wrong type of treatment for varroa. Weather is another regional variation.



Your comment here was not very helpful:-

"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!"


It makes me think that you were cross at not being able to win the argument - and you don't understand honeybees. I bow to your greater knowledge on wasps.



With regard to weather and queen mating problems Karol; this year the weather has been crap for many of us. Some say the worst in living memory.

We had March followed by March followed by March.

Queens could not get out to mate - it was simply too cold for them. I had ONE day in May where the weather was warm enough (21 degrees) after weeks of cold weather. All 5 virgin queens I had went up that day. All mated and within a 3 days all had eggs in their hives. A sigh of relief from me. There was not another good day for a further few weeks. I was lucky, some beekeepers were not so their queens would have been stale and would have become drone layers. So to answer your question above, yes. The weather!

Weather happens. Bees survive, that's why they swarm - to split and re-populate old nest sites and find new ones. By and large, for a queen that didn't mate, the mother would still be laying somewhere so the genes live on to swarm again. This year has just been more challenging than some. I can see no link to pesticides here.

The poll was very simple. I don't know if you are trying to read too much into the question now or whether you are squirming because the answer is that, as beekeepers, most of us don't seem to see a problem where you seem to be arguing that there is one, no matter what.

 

[Brosville]

- and confirms absolutely nothing regarding pesticides' culpability - as I said right at the beginning of this thread, without testing of every single colony loss, there is no proof whatsoever.

It has indeed been a really rubbish year, which is probably at the root cause of many problems, but it still doesn't make this poll an accurate indicator of what was caused by "icides" (of all sorts)

So to rewrite the last claim "the poll was simple" - yes it was - far TOO simple........and to try to extrapolate the results as some sort of clear answer is to completely misunderstand scientific methodology (at secondary school level)

 

[oliver90owner]

March followed by March followed by March.

A load of rubbish. How short memories are! If every month had been like March, few would be complaining!

March was out of character. The OSR started blooming in March It was in bloom over a period of over 8 weeks but there was little more than subsistence collected by the bees for seven of them. It all went pear-shaped at the start of April. March was far too warm and since has been far too cold/wet.

Well that is what happened in my neck of the woods. Some may have been a little different.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

Well if you want to be pedantic. You know what I meant I'm sure. Months of cold wet weather - like March.