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

[Chris Luck]

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.

You'll never find a French farmer or bee keeper that will admit to things going well however much money they are making.

There is nothing wrong here with honey bees, however if there is a problem for "bees" it's due to habitat loss.

Chris

 

[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

Having just reflected on your posting, it suddenly struck me that neonics were banned in France. Isn't that the case? The soil association put this briefing paper out which is quite interesting;

http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RXLEm9WXrHk=

Particularly of note is this paragraph which sums things up:

"Countries that have taken action against neonicotinoids to protect their honey
bees:
France
Widespread hive collapse was first seen in France in July 1994, a few days after the
sunflowers came into bloom. This coincided with the use of a brand new insecticide
used to treat the sunflower seeds. This new insecticide was ‘Gaucho’ manufactured by
Bayer – and the chief ingredient is the Neonicotinoid ‘Imidacloprid’ (IMD). It was being
used on half of France’s sunflower seeds by 1997.
In 1999 honey production in France fell to 50,000 tons - down from 110,000 tons in
1996. The National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF) reported a third of the country’s
honey bee colonies had disappeared. They were desperate and lobbied the French
agriculture ministry.
In 1997, after much lobbying by UNAF, the Commission des Toxiques put up 6 million
francs for research into how IMD was affecting bees, but did not suspend the IMD at
this point.
1998 saw intense IMD research in France; and the results of this research, carried out
at Bologne University and the Institute National Researche Agricole (INRA) told a
different story from the pesticide manufacturers.
The French researchers (led by Dr Colin at INRA) looked at doses of IMD down to
<1 ppb (parts per billion) and found that as little as 6ppb could impair the foraging
behaviour of the bees – and their feeding behaviour. They have video evidence of this –
comparing organic and IMD affected colonies. This was of course completely at odds
with the manufacturer, Bayer’s, figure of IMD being safe at levels 50- 100ppb.
However despite all this compelling evidence the Commission des Toxiques still did not
suspend IMD use and opted to continue trials.
The beekeepers (UNAF) and allied organisations took direct action and protested on the
streets in Paris in December 1998. They appealed to the Minister of Agriculture Marc
Galvany, who could overrule the Commission des Toxiques. On Jan 22nd 1999 the
Minister acted on the scientific evidence and directed IMD be suspended from use on
sunflowers until research proved it safe (this suspension was upheld in 2000). This was
the first time the principle of precaution had been used in France in a decision to
remove a pesticide from the market.
In addition the beekeeping organisation UNAF has stated that the safety tests required
by the EU directive 91/414/EEC have not been carried out on Gaucho. When the risk
coefficient (Hazard Quotient or HQ) of a product rises above 50 it is compulsory under
EU law to carry out a number of tests on bee larvae. For Gaucho, used on sweet corn
seed, the HQs are 18,900 and 11,283 for oral and dermal exposure respectively. Bayer
argued that the HQ value is irrelevant where seed dressings are concerned as the seeds
are not consumed. However, the chemicals are detected in the nectar and pollen
consumed by bees.
In different judgements (the last one in 2006) France’s Council of State declared that
the conditions of authorization for Gaucho had not been fulfilled, compelling the Minister
to suspend the use of Gaucho until the EU completes its review of IMD. The ban on
Gaucho in France seems to have worked. By 2006/07 bee deaths had fallen to less than
10%.
Imidacloprid has been banned as a sunflower seed dressing since 1999 and in 2003 was
also banned as a sweet corn, oilseed rape. Bayer's application for approval of
Clothianidin was also rejected by French authorities. This ban is still in place.
In France over 90 billion bees died over the last 10 years, reducing honey production by
up to 60%"

I'm confused. Is the soil association wrong as well?

 

[BeeJayBee]

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

I don't understand why you didn't just search for the BBKA stats instead of using something that, at best, paraphrases them. 2012 report here http://tinyurl.com/cr3xewl

Neither the information presented to Parliament nor the BBKA stats can tell how many beekeepers there are in UK. No beekeeper is required to either belong to a BKA or register with DEFRA, so overall numbers at any given time are, at best, a guesstimate. The other thing that's missing is the total numbers on the sample (- was it 50, 500 or 5,000? -) so the percentages given, and which you've quoted, are little more than numbers written down for a press release. (Yes, I know that 3% of 50 can be extrapolated as being greater, and more scary, than 3% of 50,000, but there would also be a need to postulate the reasons for apathy.)

At risk of raising the profile of BBKA and the naysayers, there are some stats that might be a bit more relevant. If you look back a few years http://tinyurl.com/d52bj2p you'll see that

1990 marked the arrival of the varroa mite in the UK, which had a major adverse impact on bee colonies and many beekeepers gave up beekeeping in the 1990s, because there appeared to be no effective treatment. [...]
Membership of the BBKA dropped from 15,000 in 1990 to just under 9,000 in 2001. This was primarily due to many people giving up beekeeping because varroa control was difficult and a difficulty in encouraging new members or reflecting the importance of honey bees to the environment.

and

... a rapid increase in membership [which by 2008] reached nearly 21,000.

At no point does it say that 21,000 beekeepers respond to questionnaires.

Bad, alarmist, and frightening news sells newspapers, magazines and journals - even the specialist ones. Good news rarely makes the press.

Also, in Britain there are many, many, beekeepers whose bees are out of reach of any arable crops, let alone crops grown from seed coated with insecticides. But, those bees with access to a whole 8 weeks of OSR, will also be within reach of a) other flowering plants which some of the bees will prefer, and b) there are another 44 weeks (or more) of the year when the bees will be either foraging elsewhere or using stores that will be either from syrup given by the beekeeper or a result of their own foraging. In Britain there isn't the space for the vast acreages of USA, so it's unlikely that our bees will suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

 

[Karol]

I don't understand why you didn't just search for the BBKA stats instead of using something that, at best, paraphrases them. <snip>

No particular reason I guess save that Parliament makes policy and to do so must adjudicate on opinion.

Neither the information presented to Parliament nor the BBKA stats can tell how many beekeepers there are in UK. No beekeeper is required to either belong to a BKA or register with DEFRA, so overall numbers at any given time are, at best, a guesstimate. The other thing that's missing is the total numbers on the sample (- was it 50, 500 or 5,000? -) so the percentages given, and which you've quoted, are little more than numbers written down for a press release. (Yes, I know that 3% of 50 can be extrapolated as being greater, and more scary, than 3% of 50,000, but there would also be a need to postulate the reasons for apathy.)

All of which from an objective stand point says that no one really has a handle on what's going on. There may well be more bee keepers now but growth in BBKA membership may equally be a consequence of the association becoming more relevant and valuable to members thereby attracting established beeks that previously weren't members. The BBKAs data states that whilst membership has increased the number of colonies averaging per bee keeper has halved. So, based on the BBKA data, has there actually been an increase in the number of bees? Strikes me that no one really knows.

I don't get your point about 3% of 50 vs 3% of 50,000? It's still 3%.

At risk of raising the profile of BBKA and the naysayers, there are some stats that might be a bit more relevant. If you look back a few years http://tinyurl.com/d52bj2p you'll see that
and


At no point does it say that 21,000 beekeepers respond to questionnaires.

So what of the loss figures stated by the BBKA? The number of respondents to each of the questionnaires was good as far as questionnaire response rates go. However, the 60% that didn't respond could very easily sway the loss figures either way.

Bad, alarmist, and frightening news sells newspapers, magazines and journals - even the specialist ones. Good news rarely makes the press.

Which is why I always revert to primary published reference papers for evidence.

Also, in Britain there are many, many, beekeepers whose bees are out of reach of any arable crops, let alone crops grown from seed coated with insecticides. But, those bees with access to a whole 8 weeks of OSR, will also be within reach of a) other flowering plants which some of the bees will prefer, and b) there are another 44 weeks (or more) of the year when the bees will be either foraging elsewhere or using stores that will be either from syrup given by the beekeeper or a result of their own foraging. In Britain there isn't the space for the vast acreages of USA, so it's unlikely that our bees will suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

I get that. But does lack of exposure justify arguing that neonics aren't a problem? What's to stop utilization increasing from 19% currently to say 50% in the future by for example simply swopping out existing older generation pesticides (as an example, from memory, 26% are currently pyrethroids) with neonics?

 

[Nic Rhodes]

anyone know BBKA membership now?

 

[Hivemaker.]

What's to stop utilization increasing from 19% currently to say 50% in the future by for example simply swopping out existing older generation pesticides (as an example, from memory, 26% are currently pyrethroids) with neonics?

That could be a move in the right direction with regards safety to honey bees.

 

[Brosville]

And may well bring more people into contact with substances that could be carcinogenic and mutagenic, and if many people are to be believed may contribute to the decimation of wildlife as well - (Tennekes etc) - http://www.farmlandbirds.net/en/taxonomy/term/3

I really wouldn't want people pointing to me for having spread the untrue claims that "neonics are safe", as the consequences could be horrendous.

For the third time, this poll proves nothing at all - if I or one of the others who post about the dangers of pesticides had tried to draw such wobbly and inaccurate conclusions from a badly designed and unscientific poll, we'd have been rightfully laughed off the board....

Lets see the science before claiming these things are "safe"

 

[Hivemaker.]

And may well bring more people into contact with substances that could be carcinogenic and mutagenic,

Lots of nasty things in the world, how about banning diesel and petrol engines.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2158574/Diesel-engine-exhaust-fumes-major-cancer-risk.html

 

[Brosville]

There's lots of things we could do without, but as I've said many times "systemics" scare the living willies out of me because of the potential for colossal harm to all life exposed to them - in an ideal world we'd test the bejaysus out of everything before we allowed them to be released into nature, sadly the regulatory bodies are hopelessly biased towards giving them the "benefit of the doubt" and allowing their widespread use before they are proven entirely safe - we've seen what damage DDT, organophosphates and other chemicals can wreak, these systemics are potentially far more dangerous, and I am not convinced there is sufficient benefit for us to be forced to take the risk attendant on such cavalier use..... (organics is proved to work)

 

[Hivemaker.]

This still looks like an even bigger problem to me, it affects everything on the planet in some way.

Diesel exhaust fumes are 'major cancer risk' and as deadly as asbestos and mustard gas, says World Health Organisation

Diesel exhaust found to cause lung cancer and associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer
WHO says the fumes belong in same category as mustard gas and asbestos
Risks are on a level with passive smoking

 

[Brosville]

I agree, they should be fitted with particulate filters, and banned from cities - if you like I could fill the page with similar very real problems we face in the modern world, but I honestly believe that of all the problems we face nowadays (like overpopulation), by far one of the biggest comes from the concerted battering "modern farming" is giving the planet - it's killing the soil's innate fertility, decimating wildlife, and perpetuating some pretty ghastly practices, all in the cause of pursuit of the almighty dollar.

 

[Chris Luck]

The facts for Karol taken from articles written by me in 2007 and 2008.

Two of these insecticides known respectively as Regent (fipronil), and Gaucho (imidaclopride), were in used extensively in France to coat the seeds of sunflowers and maize before sowing. They have a systemic action and enter all parts of the growing crop including the flower, pollen and nectar. When abnormal bee losses were first noticed in the 1990’s the finger was pointed at these products and they were banned from being used on sunflowers in 1999 but it wasn’t until 2004 that the ministre de l'agriculture français Hervé Gaymard announced that the use of Gaucho for the treatment of maize seeds would be banned.

.....

So, given all this doubt and uncertainty it is hard to understand why the French minister of agriculture Michel Barnier authorised the use in France of an insecticide named “Cruiser” which is manufactured by Syngenta. This product, which contains thiaméthoxam, belongs to the same family as the active substances of Gaucho and Regent that have been banned due to their harmful impact on the bees. It’s even more surprising given that it’s now a French government aim to reduce pesticide and herbicide uses by 50% over the next 10 years.

.....

This current year these products, (Regent), were still in use having been banned in June of this year and means that effectively they have been in use since the early 90's.

http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2012/06/29/le-pesticide-cruiser-interdit-en-france-pour-proteger-les-abeilles_1727151_3244.html

Chris

 

[domino]

There's lots of things we could do without, but as I've said many times "systemics" scare the living willies out of me because of the potential for colossal harm to all life exposed to them - in an ideal world we'd test the bejaysus out of everything before we allowed them to be released into nature, sadly the regulatory bodies are hopelessly biased towards giving them the "benefit of the doubt" and allowing their widespread use before they are proven entirely safe - we've seen what damage DDT, organophosphates and other chemicals can wreak, these systemics are potentially far more dangerous, and I am not convinced there is sufficient benefit for us to be forced to take the risk attendant on such cavalier use..... (organics is proved to work)

How precisely are neonicotinoids more dangerous than organophosphates?

 

[oliver90owner]

Lots of nasty things in the world, how about banning diesel and petrol engines.


If that happened there would be war across the globe.

But let's reflect a little...

Leaded fuel. Anyone interested in that one should not only consider the residues ex-exhaust, but also research the toxicity of tetraethyl lead. It was just not understood initially and then the manufacturers continued (yes, it was so profitable), regardless of the fatalities caused. And there were many fatalities among the workers, of that there is no doubt. A bit like asbestos and other carcinogens in those periods of modern maufacturing of the time.

Diesel cars were hailed as 'green' back in the 1980's and were only retarded in manufacture/supply by the lower power and noisy clatter. I joined the diesel car fraternity in 1987 (excepting my earlier Landrover) but was well aware of the particulates and sulphur and NOx emissions.

Banning asbestos and a lot of other nasty compounds (CFCs, DDT and a lot of others) has made the world a safer place, but here we have potentially enough poison to change the world for the worse and the powers that be just allow it to go on - because it is profitable. Yes, they recognise the older pesticides were dangerous but are living with the hope that these killers will allow them to not have to take action to reduce or phase out their use. 'Hope'? Yeah right! I always said there were two of them - Bob Hope and No Hope. Bob Hope is sadly dead and we will be, too.

These neonics will not really affect me so much, as potentially my grandchildren and their children. They will never be proved safe. Never, ever.

 

[Chris Luck]

Now to muddy the waters or to add another factor - take your pick...

....these abnormal colony losses in France coincided more or less with the arrival, (1982), and the growth and spread of the varroa mite in and across France. The initial use of miticides and other toxic products were often used, (and still can be), in a somewhat cavalier manner that was as detrimental to the bees as it was the mites with corresponding build up in comb and wax.

Chris

 

[Hebeegeebee]

"There may well be more bee keepers now but growth in BBKA membership may equally be a consequence of the association becoming more relevant and valuable to members thereby attracting established beeks that previously weren't members. The BBKAs data states that whilst membership has increased the number of colonies averaging per bee keeper has halved. So, based on the BBKA data, has there actually been an increase in the number of bees? Strikes me that no one really knows"

There has been a large increase in new beekeepers over recent years. Some of those will have just a few colonies compared to the well-established beekeepers before the 'craze' took off who used beekeeping as a cottage industry.

 

[BeeJayBee]

anyone know BBKA membership now?

Facts and figures page http://tinyurl.com/cdfln5k says

More than 23,000 members

It's almost impossible to work out either the number of UK beekeepers or the number of kept colonies, even if looking at data from FERA inspection reports. But this one https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/downloadDocument.cfm?id=582 suggests (2011)

Approximate total honey production in England and Wales [2011]:
Number of beekeepers registered to Beebase 25000
Estimate of ‘unknown’ beekeepers say 25% 6250
Total Beekeepers 31250
Beebase average colonies per beekeeper 5.07
Total number of colonies 31250 x 5.07 158437

Other FERA annual reports are on this page https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/beebase/index.cfm?pageid=168

Oh, and Southampton University is researching the impact of diesel particulates on bees http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2011/oct/11_97.shtml

 

[Hivemaker.]

Oh, and Southampton University is researching the impact of diesel particulates on bees http://www.southampton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2011/oct/11_97.shtml

Thank you BJ, looks like diesel could be having a similar affect on bees to the claimed effects of neonics...so where to now then? I think there should at least be a worldwide ban on the precautionary principle. Will be interesting to know the outcome of the research.


New research: are global honey bee declines caused by diesel pollution?

Ref: 11/97

07 October 2011

Scientists are investigating a possible link between tiny particles of pollution found in diesel fumes and the global collapse of honey bee colonies.

Professor Guy Poppy, an ecologist, Dr Tracey Newman, a neuroscientist, and their team from the University of Southampton, believe that minuscule particles, or ‘nanoparticles’, emitted from diesel engines could be affecting bees’ brains and damaging their inbuilt ‘sat-navs’. They believe this may stop worker bees finding their way back to the hive.

The team is also investigating the possibility that nanoparticles are one of a number of stress factors that could lead to a tipping point in bee health, which in turn could contribute to bee colony collapse.

“Diesel road-traffic is increasing in the UK and research from the US has shown that nanoparticles found in its fumes can be detrimental to the brains of animals when they are exposed to large doses. We want to find out if bees are affected in the same way – and answer the question of why bees aren’t finding their way back to the hive when they leave to find food,” explains Professor Poppy.

Bees are estimated to contribute billions to the world’s economy - £430 million a year to the UK alone - by pollinating crops, producing honey and supporting employment. Yet winter losses have led to the loss of tens of thousands of beehives year on year since 2007. The US has seen a 35 per cent unexplained drop in the number of hives in 2007, 2008 and 2009*. Extensive research, including a recent United Nations Report, has so far not identified the cause of bee declines.

The team from the University of Southampton, including biologists, nanotechnology researchers and ecologists will test the behavioural and neurological changes in honey bees, after exposure to diesel nanoparticles.

Chemical ecologist Dr Robbie Girling, adds: “The diesel fumes may have a dual affect in that they may be mopping up flower smells in the air, making it harder for the bees to find their food sources.”

Recent research which has revealed more about the effects of nanoparticles has enabled scientists to investigate this possible link to bee colony collapse.

 

[Hebeegeebee]

The general thrust of the debate is that there is no easy answer. What annoys me is the newspaper reports that state "All bees are dieing" and "we must ban neonics" irrespective of the consequences; Some of the newspaper reports are (deliberately) misleading - with journalists cherry picking one fact or another to suit their own agend, their editors desire to have "news" or indeed book to sell.

News that "honeybees are OK" isn't going to sell many papers.

It would appear that as beekeepers we don't see any problems in this country by the poll at the head of this thread and for myself - from speaking to other beekeepers who have been keeping bees for decades, they don't see issues either. Bring on the Rape, they say.

 

[domino]

The general thrust of the debate is that there is no easy answer. What annoys me is the newspaper reports that state "All bees are dieing" and "we must ban neonics" irrespective of the consequences; Some of the newspaper reports are (deliberately) misleading - with journalists cherry picking one fact or another to suit their own agend, their editors desire to have "news" or indeed book to sell.

News that "honeybees are OK" isn't going to sell many papers.

It would appear that as beekeepers we don't see any problems in this country by the poll at the head of this thread and for myself - from speaking to other beekeepers who have been keeping bees for decades, they don't see issues either. Bring on the Rape, they say.

Bad news sells.

The problem I have is that banning these pesticides just means they'll be substituted for others which in some cases are far more harmful to the environment. That's why evidence based policy makes sense.