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

[Karol]

I shall be glad when half term is over and I can get back to work

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.

Don't quibble with any of what you say but the regional variation is over a 4 year period so make of that as you will. Presumably though, by inference you are saying that the distribution of neonics (as opposed to 'icides') is homogenous throughout the UK?

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.

That would be all well and good if I were wanting to win an argument - I'm not. What bee keepers do is up to them. However, when pharmacologically lay people describe neonics as essentially harmless then that's another matter entirely.

I don't accept that neonics are harmless.

All the evidence says they are harmful. Their mode of action affects certain things that bees do including complex functions such as navigation and location. It's a foredrawn pharmacological conclusion that neonics affect queen mating. The only variables are duration of exposure and dose.

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.

"Can see" being the operative term. I take it then you have experience of mating failures due to neonics to be able to distinguish between the two?

And presumably you are also saying that there haven't been any mating failures over the past decade when the weather was fine?

Just to be specific I have no issue with other pesticides that have a different mode of action. My concerns rest expressly with neonics.

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

Squirming? With all due respect you couldn't be miss reading me more even if you tried.

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.

Three things;

Sub lethal neonic toxicity manifests itself in ways that I believe most bee keepers aren't able to detect partly because they are looking for signs of acute poisoning such as those seen with direct spraying accidents (i.e. mass die offs or lots of dead bees at the hive) and partly because the manifestations are hidden either by population dynamics within the hive or by other symptoms which are viewed unidimensionally as cause when in fact they may very well be effect. So, does the rise in losses to varroa globally mirror the use of neonics globally or is this just co-incidence?

Bee keepers (with some exceptions) don't do trend analysis very well so the patterns that they believe they know so much about are biased by their own preconceptions. Much like your 'biased' take on weather conditions. Yes, most of the summer was bad but I would remind you that half the country was under a drought order for most of the year and moreover, in countries where weather patterns were fine, there were still anecdotal observations of above average queen mating failures. What was the weather like in Finland? What did Finman have to say about bee losses in Finland? Any correlation in the use of neonics in those countries?

There are bee keepers on this forum who argue that they have never had problems with neonics and yet their bees weren't exposed to neonic concentrations above NOECs simply because neonics aren't used in their locality to any great extent. That's hardly a justification to argue that neonics are OK. It's a bit like saying hand guns are safe because I haven't been shot yet.

Anyway, the Parliamentary paper clearly says that bees are dying off in the UK at a worrying rate. That being the case then I would have thought that any hazard to bees should be assessed for risk and that hazard removed or reduced to safe levels. I see no reason for neonics to remain on the market. There are other pesticides that are available that have been used for longer than neonics prior to the 'decline trend'. Personally, I believe the reason why there have been fewer spray kills in recent years is because of improvements in best practice in the application of pesticides rather than conversion to neonics. Neonics on the other hand are insidious toxins whose lethal effects are very small but incremental. What does that mean in practice? It means that beeks change their expectations of what normal performance should be little by little each year.

 

[Hivemaker.]

Anyway, the Parliamentary paper clearly says that bees are dying off in the UK at a worrying rate.

They have got it wrong then if they are referring to honey bees, they are on the increase.

 

[Karol]

They have got it wrong then if they are referring to honey bees, they are on the increase.

Don't ask me. I just read the stuff. Quoting the Parliamentary paper;

"In June 2011, the British Beekeepers Association noted four winters of unacceptably high losses:
Last winter’s weather was a mixed blessing for honey bees. Unlike humans, they like cold and dry winters when they stay ‘clustered’ tightly in their hives, saving energy for exploratory spring foraging when mild spring days raise the temperature above 12 degrees.
And over the six month period from October 2010 to March 2011, during which the Met Office reports that November was coldest for nearly 20 years, December the coldest in 100 years and February the mildest and March the driest recently – the BBKA’s 4th annual survey* of its members winter colony survival shows that continued regional** differences of dead hives can’t just be explained by fluctuating weather. The overall national loss rate was 13.6%.***
 Highest losses
17.1% North of England
 Lowest losses
9.9% Heart of England
 Largest loss increase
16.8% South west England
This is the fourth consecutive year when BBKA members have reported unacceptably high colony losses which is especially puzzling when the weather should have been in the bees favour, but it does show how fragile the health of honey bees is."

and

"In February 2009, the New Scientist summed up the worldwide crisis:
The world’s honeybees appear to be dying off in horrifying numbers, and now consensus is starting to emerge on the reason why: it seems there is no one cause. Infections, lack of food, pesticides and breeding – none catastrophic on their own – are having a synergistic effect, pushing bee survival to a lethal tipping point. (…)
1 “Fears for crops as shock figures from America show scale of bee catastrophe”, Observer, 1 May 2010
3
A third of our food relies on bees for pollination. Both the US and the UK report losing a third of their bees last year. Other European countries have seen major die-offs too: Italy, for example, said it lost nearly half its bees last year. The deaths are now spreading to Asia, with reports in India and suspected cases in China."

Losses of a third of bees in the UK in 2008. Continued losses since then?

So where does the disparity come from and who's right?

 

[Hivemaker.]

Losses of a third of bees in the UK in 2008. Continued losses since then?
Utter tripe,most likely made up so the govenment can claw back some of our money from the EU, which is then squandered doing just about nothing of any benefit for bees or beekeepers,a bit more could be spent on researching the waggle dance.


Sorry it is not what you wanted to hear, but honey bee numbers have increased quite dramatically in this country in the last few years, and numbers are very easy to increase. Have you seen the London thread,some are now worried there are too many bees and beekeepers.

Read from post 68 onwards. http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=283921#post283921

 

[oliver90owner]

You don't count a species by numbers in a zoo (unless really near to extinction). Why should you do a similar thing in these circumstances?

 

[Into the lions den]

Losses of a third of bees in the UK in 2008. Continued losses since then?

So where does the disparity come from and who's right?

OK........firstly winter losses are a normal part of beekeeping..........you get good winters and you get bad ones bees wise...............and the weather of the winter itself is generally only of passing significance unless the late winter is especially foul and the bees are confined for long periods when flight is impossible and stores consumption is on the rise. The summer before, in particular the spell after mid summer is crucial for the colony condition going into winter.

Losses of 20% are an easy recovery job most summers. Losses of 30% more problematical and this is about the upper limit for truly sustainable replacement of losses in a single season.

The APPARENT disparity comes from not comparing like with like and both can be, and are, right.

Winter losses do NOT equate to overall decline in numbers, due to summer splitting/swarming/nuc production etc.

It is perfectly probable that a significant rate of INCREASE in colonies takes place against a pattern with moderate and ongoing rates of winter loss.

It is perfectly feasible for our unit to have suffered 25% losses in the winter, yet go into the next winter with 25% more colonies than we went into the winter before.

Karol.....if you take 50% of the bacteria away from a culture what happens? Does the population stay low? Nope, they remultiply.


Beekeepers are great for loss denial, and tend to heavily underestimate this. A dying out queenless colony with a couple of hundred old bees in it is still not a loss, and they will go to great lengths to get it going again with brood, flying bees, introduced queen or cell or whatever. Its still a loss. Ditto those who do not count the duds they shake out before winter. They are still a loss, just accelerated by the beekeeper to outside of the winter period. I am sure much of it is political, no-one want to be seen down at the association as 'the one who loses so many colonies in winter', or to feel inferior to the 'big dog' members who claim never to lose a colony.

Well the latter is either patently untrue or a result of avoiding losses in winter itself by controlling that by late summer shake outs or unitings. Even then are they seriously trying to tell us they NEVER get winter queen failure? Not ever? Then they are the best (or luckiest) beekeeper in the world, by a street.

Losses are an integral part of the dynamics of beekeeping, and even more so in feral situations. They are a fact of life, and unless the population of bees was to grow exponentially, they are what creates the space for next seasons splitting/swarming etc.

You DO get bad winter loss years. Some recent winters have been fairly bad, but, at least in this part of Scotland, nothing as bad as the losses in the 60's and 80's. We had big losses the winter after the EFB outbreak, but there was so much disturbance going on, inspection, reinspection, and reinspection again way too late into the autumn, on top of our OWN management work, all in a lousy year too, that they had little chance.

FWIW here are my predictions for the winter losses in our unit for the coming winter.

Wooden Smiths 35%
Poly Smiths 15%
Wooden Langstroths 25%
Poly Langstroths 8%

Spring discovered queen defects still to add to the above.

Smith losses predicted to be highest due to exposure to trying to build up and mate in the Lothians where they had the worst weather, constantly feeding directly into them off the North Sea due to almost incessant north easterly rain bearing cold winds. Far too many small colonies. Other areas where the winds carried across more land are in better condition. Not uniting any queenright colonies this year due to worries over queens. Unite two colonies together and a queen that may go on to fail will win the scrap or have been selected by us, and working on the premise that the good ones will make it through anyway and uniting a good to a bad COULD result in a bad. So, taking the losses on the chin and already well on with preparing the gear for spring increase from the survivors.

Poly losses likely to be low due a generally more westerly location spread in spring away from the east coast, and to their ability to raise brood deeper into the autumn, and in general they are two to three bars of bees stronger than their wooden equivalents at this time. For those who might challenge 8% as low, it IS low, and does not create many openings for establishment of new colonies. Its only one empty approx in every group of 16 to 20 hives................not enough even for essential swarm control, so shook swarms into non poly gear is likely next year.

 

[Karol]

OK........firstly winter losses are a normal part of beekeeping..........you get good winters and you get bad ones bees wise...............and the weather of the winter itself is generally only of passing significance......

<snip>

.......not create many openings for establishment of new colonies. Its only one empty approx in every group of 16 to 20 hives................not enough even for essential swarm control, so shook swarms into non poly gear is likely next year.

What a great post - thank you.

If you want to talk bacterial models you're in danger of getting bored s***less. LOL! I'm sure you don't want me to explain MICs and how that model would work in neonic exposure

It's a really helpful insight to understand bee population dynamics because it helps to contextualise the issue. I think you make a very valid point in terms of differentiating between losses and turn over where the latter is essential for the overall health of the bee population. That being the case, it's the rate of turnover that strikes me as the key criteria to monitor.

 

[Karol]

Losses of a third of bees in the UK in 2008. Continued losses since then?
Utter tripe,most likely made up so the govenment can claw back some of our money from the EU, which is then squandered doing just about nothing of any benefit for bees or beekeepers,a bit more could be spent on researching the waggle dance.


Sorry it is not what you wanted to hear, but honey bee numbers have increased quite dramatically in this country in the last few years, and numbers are very easy to increase. Have you seen the London thread,some are now worried there are too many bees and beekeepers.

Read from post 68 onwards. http://www.beekeepingforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=283921#post283921

I don't have an axe to grind here. I'm happy to take whatever information is given provided that it has a robust basis to it.

Do you have any hard and fast data for the increasing numbers other than the London thread which isn't particularly representative of the rest of the demographics in the UK?

 

[Chris Luck]

100% agree with ITLD and Hivemaker.

Chris

 

[Hebeegeebee]

"And presumably you are also saying that there haven't been any mating failures over the past decade when the weather was fine?"

There have been and will always will be mating failures. In the 18th century. In the 21st century.

I don't suppose there is any information on mating failures in, say the 1960's; 1980's; post varroa and post neonics. Probably almost impossible to determine as there are so many variations to consider and the study would have had to be large to be statistically meaningful I would assume. We know that Varroa feeding on larvae damages them by vectoring viruses for example and varroa perfer drones to workers. For me varroa is the number one problem.

I deliberately stated "Can't See" due to the initial question for the poll.

FWIW, I personally have had no colony deaths in the past 3 years. No unexplained losses of foraging bees in summer. Just the odd duff queen after winter. The odd queen that becomes a drone layer or fails shortly after mating. A duff queen in Spring would make the colony unviable by itself, but it's not a death, not a winter loss in my view. I DO treat for varroa though.

For honeybees, there has been no decline trend as far as I'm aware. Numbers have increased. In the UK.

Yes, neonics are a poison. So is alcohol. A pint of beer or a glass of wine is something I can tolerate. I will be disorientated after 10 - and might not be able to find my way home.

What I don't know is how practices vary in European countries compared to the UK. (Practices rather than the letter of the law). How practices are different in the USA? We know, for example, that in the USA they ship massive quantities of honeybees to yards or to the almonds prior to nectar being available. The bees will then pass diseases amongst themselves due to their close proximity with each other, there's probably robbing when the nectar finishes and then they ship the bees to another monoculture or spread them (and their diseases) around the country.

We don't see a honeybee problem in this country - and it's not because we are deliberately being blind - whereas there are honeybee losses elsewhere in the world. Is it, because our farmers are generally more responsible than our European neighbours and stick to correct and safe doses (the 1 pint of beer example) and we don't slosh inappropriate amounts of chemicals around like they do?

 

[Karol]

"<snip>

For honeybees, there has been no decline trend as far as I'm aware. Numbers have increased. In the UK.

I have no reason to doubt you but I find it intriguing that there is such a difference of opinion. Is there not some definitive data on what's happening with bee populations because it would be ludicrous to make policy decisions based on unsubstantiated assumptions?

Is it, because our farmers are generally more responsible than our European neighbours and stick to correct and safe doses (the 1 pint of beer example) and we don't slosh inappropriate amounts of chemicals around like they do?

If it is the case then it needs to be understood. My concern is that it might be because the UK was a late adopter of neonics by comparison with other countries and it may therefore be that the UK is behind the curve so to speak. It may also be that differences in crop distribution might play a part. At 19% utilization, the use of neonics isn't that great in the UK. I haven't looked at their usage in other countries so don't know if relative utilization is a factor.

It's interesting to hear that you have a lower turn over with your bees than other beeks appear to have. Do your bees forage consistently off neonic crops?

 

[Chris B]

Do your bees forage consistently off neonic crops?

Don't know what Heegee's answer is but most beekeepers would have to answer "Yes" as the great majority of bees in this country will forage on rape, even if it's several miles away. It's now standard for rape to have a neonic seed dressing.

 

[mbc]

I bow to your greater knowledge on wasps.

I think after reading some of the unmitigated, pseudo scientific nonsense this poster has come out with on this and other threads, the seemingly knowledgeable stuff written about wasps needs to be reexamined for ludicrous falsehoods before it gets embedded as truths. I, for one, am dubious.

 

[madasafish]

I think after reading some of the unmitigated, pseudo scientific nonsense this poster has come out with on this and other threads, the seemingly knowledgeable stuff written about wasps needs to be reexamined for ludicrous falsehoods before it gets embedded as truths. I, for one, am dubious.

 

[Chris Luck]

My apiaries are in the thick of it, OSR, Sunflowers and Maize and have no obvious losses or issues connected with these treatments, bees are doing just hunky dory and as I've mentioned before it's more an issue of what to do with the excess.

As you are no doubt aware we have had these Neonicotinoids in France for a very long time one way or another and much as I'd like to point a finger at them I simply can't, my losses as I put before are in line with what I would expect even though those crops provide a large part of their nectar and pollen.

Honey bees simply aren't in trouble in France and where losses are high I suspect keeper error or perhaps just plain bad fortune.

Chris

 

[Karol]

Don't know what Heegee's answer is but most beekeepers would have to answer "Yes" as the great majority of bees in this country will forage on rape, even if it's several miles away. It's now standard for rape to have a neonic seed dressing.

OK. But I found Oliver90owner's post interesting viz;

"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 might be that there's a bit of a pattern emerging. ITLD posted that the make up of his honey was only 20% OSR and the rest from natural sources of forage.

This on the back of one of the research papers (can't remember which one) that stated they couldn't get their test bees to feed from neonic sources.

It is possible that there is a mechanism that naturally lowers exposure. If the paper published in nature holds up that foraging falls by 55% in treated crops, then this potentially would be made up elsewhere. Not just that, but if bees can't navigate back then presumably they can't communicate the location of the food source. This may contribute to lower levels of exposure in the hive, i.e. below NOECs for the hive (but not the individuals that don't return).

In an environment where neonic utilization is low, i.e. 19% according to Defra Nat Stats, then presumably bees will have alternative sources to forage from. Perhaps what is different in other countries is the relative balance in utilization which might then force bees to take more from treated crops.

Before you rip me to pieces, all of this is speculative and there is little that I have to substantiate it. However, there are parts of the jigsaw that fit and others that don't. I'm convinced from all the evidence I've seen that neonics are a problem. What I don't understand is why that problem is not (apparently) manifesting itself in the UK. Is it because the symptoms are masked by other things such as varroa, starvation, nosema etc, or masked by a high rate of replacement (i.e. turnover) or is it because time and dose of exposure is limited.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

"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."

I can't speak for RAB (And I wouldn't dare ! (sorry I coudn't resist that! ) but this was a particularly bad year for OSR too. Some beekeepers had their hives 'on the Rape' and were having to feed them as the weather was too cold - either the bees weren't getting out or the plants weren't secreting.

My bees forage on whatever is about. This year there was little Rape near me. Last year there was plenty about a mile away. I am surrounded by farmland. Few top fruit trees in my neck of the woods. There's a dormitory town a couple of miles away.

I don't think neonic damage to colonies would be masked by varroa or nosema. My assumption is that neonics would make matters worse as colonies would fail to thrive.

If your hypothesis is right and exposure is slight in the UK, that would tie in with my analogy of a pint of beer doing me no harm when 10 pints would have me under the table.

The idea that bees know to avoid neonics is an interesting one. This would indicate that any study which did force-feed neonics was flawed. For neonic treated OSR, my bees love it when they can get it. IF they didn't like it for any reason, they would look elsewhere.

Some of the posters who have contributed to this discussion owe their livelihood to beekeeping, the mad fools! If they thought there was a problem with neonics they would be writing to their MP, and letting us all know about it!

 

[Karol]

My apiaries are in the thick of it, OSR, Sunflowers and Maize and have no obvious losses or issues connected with these treatments, bees are doing just hunky dory and as I've mentioned before it's more an issue of what to do with the excess.

As you are no doubt aware we have had these Neonicotinoids in France for a very long time one way or another and much as I'd like to point a finger at them I simply can't, my losses as I put before are in line with what I would expect even though those crops provide a large part of their nectar and pollen.

Honey bees simply aren't in trouble in France and where losses are high I suspect keeper error or perhaps just plain bad fortune.

Chris

I think this is really intriguing because there is clearly a disparity in the views about what is happening out there.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/beehealth.htm summarizes I guess the perception that honeybees are still in trouble in France. It also very clearly identifies the lack of decent trending data as a major problem.

 

[Karol]

If your hypothesis is right and exposure is slight in the UK, that would tie in with my analogy of a pint of beer doing me no harm when 10 pints would have me under the table.

Only 10 pints? You've obviously got a low LD50

The one pint - ten pint analogy is a good one. But it can also be extended to what would happen if you were to drink say 2 pints per day every day. You could do that for eight weeks with little effect - probably. But do it more than that and you'll start to see different effects. Changes in liver function. Slow deterioration in mental performance. Accumulation of lipids in tissues. Little things that would be difficult to put a finger on at first.

So perhaps, OSR is closer to 2 pints a day for eight weeks or for however short it flowers.

The idea that bees know to avoid neonics is an interesting one.

Just an observation of some of the anecdotal comments made on the forum and some of the findings in research papers. It could also be that in the first few weeks of OSR exposure the bees won't be feeling any effects as it will take time for them to manifest themselves. So the pattern around OSR might very well be a high take in say the first week or two followed by a decline either because foraging efficiency is affected by the neonics or the bees go off the stuff. Again, this is pure speculation.

This would indicate that any study which did force-feed neonics was flawed.

Certainly wasn't optimal and for lots of reasons. However, the study becomes more relevant where bees don't have a choice and have to exclusively forage off neonic crops. From my understanding that simply doesn't happen in the UK (as yet).

For neonic treated OSR, my bees love it when they can get it. IF they didn't like it for any reason, they would look elsewhere.

Some of the posters who have contributed to this discussion owe their livelihood to beekeeping, the mad fools! If they thought there was a problem with neonics they would be writing to their MP, and letting us all know about it!

But do we know that there aren't any other commercial bee keepers who have written to their MPs?

As I posted earlier, I'm intrigued by the disparity of views about the state of honeybees.

 

[Nic Rhodes]

who thinks bee numbers are declining?