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

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Have you lost a colony to pesticides in last 3 years?

  • Definitely - confirmed by analysis

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • I think so - not confirmed by analysis

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • Maybe - colony death was unexplained

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • Probably not - other cause of death more likely

    Votes: 28 29.8%
  • No colony deaths experienced

    Votes: 59 62.8%

  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .
biased by Big AG or not?

The JHI is a research organisation that works to help the sustainabilty of the rural environment, including food production. I don't work for the agrochemical industry as Doris implies.

You previously explained that part of your job is to breed potatos and that you are very much in favour of GM technology. This is what I meant when I wrote that you are part of 'the industry'.

This fact alone would be acceptable if your stance on pesticides wasn't hugely biased towards defending them at all cost and if you didn't misinterpret scientific studies to that effect.
 
Did you ask Gavin's permission before posting some of his personal details on here?
 
Did you ask Gavin's permission before posting some of his personal details on here?

I can assure you that I have posted nothing that he hasn't posted himself on one of the many fora and discussion groups he is or was active in, e.g. Old BBKA forum, Irish List, BeeL, SBAi, etc.

I have no access to any of his private data.
 
You'll not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with that. Over the years, others who know me have 'outed' my employer and so it has been discussed in the public domain but I didn't put it there in the first place. Exactly the same goes for my surname. Doris' attempt this afternoon to talk about my age failed dismally - she didn't remember correctly.

I could have asked Admin or HM this afternoon to pull it but I didn't. I'd rather that people got to see for themselves what it is like these days when someone who seems to regard themselves as an environmentalist turns into a bullying character on the internet. It isn't pretty and Doris isn't the only one. In Doris' case she seemed to lose the plot some time ago. I don't know quite what is wrong with her, but she gets my pity more than my anger.

I had this link send to me this afternoon, not for the first time. It gives an insight into what is going on here:

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...threatening-environment-human-health-amp-bees

Sorry for this little diversion in the thread, and well done Chris B for starting it. It has been interesting.

G.
 
Last edited:
Gee...even Barry shut her down. Provoking that takes a bit of doing and is something she deserves a medal for...................dont think I have EVER seen it happen.
 
In that case I've taken the step of reporting the earlier post to ask for your work details to be removed.

Cabin fever?

What's it matter? It's not as if he's M15 or seeking an injunction against having his tax details revealed.:laughing-smiley-004

Chris
 
I have to say I can't reconcile any of the arguments presented by those who oppose a ban on neonics on the precautionary principle.

37% total losses seems high to me and that doesn't include all the work done to maintain hives because it doesn't even touch on the issue of queen losses/failures.

As with any toxin there will always be a spectrum of effects ranging from the no observable effects (biological changes without visible harm) at one end to outright catastrophic effects at the other.

I think it is misguided for beeks on here who experience NOEs with neonics because of limited exposure and extensive periods of wash out to use that as the basis for defending the use of neonics.

For CCD to be caused by neonics requires extreme conditions or lots of coincidental factors to combine. Extreme conditions would include hives being situated in locations where the bees are permanently exposure to neonic crops. That's least likely to happen in Scotland and most likely to happen in continental Europe and that kinda reflects the epidemiology of CCD.

In the UK, it's far more likely that the effect of neonics will be seen as beeks having to cycle faster to maintain their hives than they did previously. Having observed the forum for sometime, I get the impression that that's what is happening. Beeks working harder to correct queenless colonies, to merge colonies, rear more queens, etc, etc so as to compensate for losses. 37% losses in total? Natural rate? I don't think so and I certainly don't believe that's purely a weather driven phenomenon as the poll is constitent with higher losses reported over the past several years.
 
What's it matter? It's not as if he's M15 or seeking an injunction ....


Damn! That's another one the conspiracy theorists will pick up on ... there's no point denying it, you *know* that's not true ... LOL!

Karol, top marks for your response to Doris, but for beekeeping insight you really should start listening to those with heaps of experience of the craft.

Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using Tapatalk
 
Sorry to have offended you, Karol.

Apology accepted. However, I don't accept or share your universal condemnation of companies such as Bayer.

As a company Bayer are helping to save and improve countless lives each year. I know. I see that at the sharp end. I've worked on projects in the medical sector that have relied on the science and technology that Bayer have developed. As far as I'm concerned Bayer are an ethical company that would no sooner poison you as they would themselves and to suggest anything else is delusional.

That doesn't mean to say that Bayer can't make mistakes. They operate in a world which society creates for them. If there isn't enough rigour in the licensing system, then it's not their fault if products are licensed for use that meet licensing standards. Nor is it their fault if they are profit driven because again, that is what society requires of them.

If companies do make mistakes, then these mistakes need to be pointed out but that does not give anyone the right to defame them in the manner in which you have. More importantly it debases any credibility in your argument because people just view you as a politicized 'nut' and worse still, gives ammunition to the counter argument to tar others with the same reactionary brush. I think that's really quite sad because it just turns people off so that they stop listening entirely and if you can't carry an audience there's no point wasting your breath.

My message to you is quite simple. Stay on point and don't personalise things. Then you might regain some of the respect that you've lost.

All of which is meant with best intentions.
 
Damn! That's another one the conspiracy theorists will pick up on ... there's no point denying it, you *know* that's not true ... LOL!

Karol, top marks for your response to Doris, but for beekeeping insight you really should start listening to those with heaps of experience of the craft.

Sent from my BlackBerry 8520 using Tapatalk

I listen to (and more importantly hear) beekeepers all the time. I rarely enter into discussion in areas where I have little knowledge. Your forte is beecraft but then I wouldn't dream of telling you how to keep bees. But then, this isn't about keeping bees. My forte is diseases, drug design, clinical trials, pharmacology, product innovation but most importantly product risk management. (I have personal responsibility for having placed more than 27,000 different formulations on the market over a 25 year period). You'll have to excuse me if having heard what you and others that are pro-neonics have said I don't accept your collective argument that neonics should remain on the market. You have yet to provide any cohesive argument for the safety of neonics that is scientifically credible.
 
For CCD to be caused by neonics requires extreme conditions or lots of coincidental factors to combine. Extreme conditions would include hives being situated in locations where the bees are permanently exposure to neonic crops. That's least likely to happen in Scotland and most likely to happen in continental Europe and that kinda reflects the epidemiology of CCD.
.

???????
Where did you dig that out from?

CCD in Europe? Where? When? How many?
 
You'll have to excuse me if having heard what you and others that are pro-neonics have said I don't accept your collective argument that neonics should remain on the market. .

Who is pro neonics? What I see are people WITH BEES who are finding there is less bee damage today than in the past. Go back 30 years and it was carnage more years than not.................sprays on OSR, raspberries, apples etc etc that would decimate hives almost instantly. Today this never seems to happen. Fair to say this was largely the situation also with the generation of chemicals priorto neonics.

Yes we would all rather live without pesticides but we are but one link in a very large chain, and if we knacker one link (farming) for the sake of another (us) the chain breaks. All must be sensible and all must be in balance.

Painting those who would argue against a ban (which category includes myself) does not make us pro anything. Best of a bad bunch is more like it, and waiting for the next generation to come along, as it surely will quite soon, and hope it better. I resent being called pro neonics, I am pro bee, and want the least damaging product to my bees to be used. For now this seems to be neonic seed dressings.
 
Who is pro neonics? What I see are people WITH BEES who are finding there is less bee damage today than in the past. Go back 30 years and it was carnage more years than not.................sprays on OSR, raspberries, apples etc etc that would decimate hives almost instantly. Today this never seems to happen. Fair to say this was largely the situation also with the generation of chemicals priorto neonics.

Yes we would all rather live without pesticides but we are but one link in a very large chain, and if we knacker one link (farming) for the sake of another (us) the chain breaks. All must be sensible and all must be in balance.

Painting those who would argue against a ban (which category includes myself) does not make us pro anything. Best of a bad bunch is more like it, and waiting for the next generation to come along, as it surely will quite soon, and hope it better. I resent being called pro neonics, I am pro bee, and want the least damaging product to my bees to be used. For now this seems to be neonic seed dressings.

I accept you're not 'pro-neonic' and if it came over that way then I take it back. I'm happy to go with anti-ban. I also accept the sentiment and rationale is different but the outcome is nevertheless the same.

In the same way that you resent being called 'pro-neonic' I resent being labelled as anti-pesticide. I manufacture and sell 'pesticides' to treat human infestations which means I have to understand how they work.

My interest in neonics isn't about bees per se. I'm more concerned about human health and if this happens to benefit bees by the same token then all well and good. My 'risk assessment' is that neonics are not only not safe for bees, they are not safe for humans either and we are just as likely to suffer from sub lethal effects that will manifest themselves in increased fertility problems, neurological foetal impairment, increase in cancers and gut problems etc etc. All of those same problems that we see from nicotine just burried under the noise of nicotine induced diseases.

I will pick you up on one other point viz your quote:

"Yes we would all rather live without pesticides but we are but one link in a very large chain, and if we knacker one link (farming) for the sake of another (us) the chain breaks. All must be sensible and all must be in balance."

Continued use of neonics is more likely to knacker the 'farming link' in the long than them being banned!
 
The curious story of Premise Plus Nature (TM)

That doesn't mean to say that Bayer can't make mistakes. They operate in a world which society creates for them. If there isn't enough rigour in the licensing system, then it's not their fault if products are licensed for use that meet licensing standards. Nor is it their fault if they are profit driven because again, that is what society requires of them.

Hi Karol, I see your point. But maybe you need to distinguish between the sections of Bayer that produce medicines and the ones that produce pesticides. These are quite different entities.

You seem to believe that Bayer Crop Science is not aware how damaging their products might be for bees. You have not seen this article yet:

Premise Plus Nature Equals Value Added Termite Control

March 1, 1997


[SIZE=-1]Countless weapons have been created over the years in attempts to win the war against termites. Some kill on contact, others repel termites, but all share the goal of structural protection. Throughout the search to find the perfect weapon even nature has been unsuccessful, until now. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Premise® Insecticide, introduced by Bayer Corporation in 1996, works synergistically with nature to provide value-added termite control. Premise Plus Nature,TM the term the manufacturer uses to describe the product's unique mode of action, affects termites by making them susceptible to infection, disease and death by naturally occurring organisms.



HOW IT WORKS.

With Premise there are two modes of action at work. At moderate to high exposure levels, Premise causes termites to stop feeding, stop grooming, become disoriented and die. Premise Plus Nature takes over at lower exposure levels. Unlike contact mortality and repellent barrier termiticides, this unique mode of action puts Premise in a category all its own.
Like germs that cause illness and disease in humans, microorganisms, especially fungi naturally present in the soil, cause disease in termites. Fungal spores attach themselves to the termite cuticle, germinate, penetrate and eventually cause death. But thanks to Mother Nature, termites have found ways to survive in this hostile soil environment.
The termites' habit of grooming themselves and other termites in the colony is a principle part of their defense systems. This instinctive habit enables termites to virtually eliminate the threat of the fungi; termites remove the spores before they can germinate and cause disease.
Premise Plus Nature disrupts this natural defense process. After exposure to Premise, termites no longer groom themselves or take care of each other. Premise interferes with their methods of combating fungi and, in the end, they will succumb to disease and death.
"Grooming offers termites a shield to protect themselves. But when grooming stops and the shield is down, infection takes over," said David Price, a biologist at Bayer Corporation's Vero Beach, Fla., laboratory. "With Premise, termites don't get the chance to fight back."



SEEING IS BELIEVING.

Visitors to the Bayer booth at the National Pest Control Association's convention and trade show in San Diego in October had the opportunity to witness Premise Plus Nature in action. Live demonstrations showed the one-day, two-day and five-day effects Premise has on termites.
"With the demonstrations you can see how Premise Plus Nature works," said Price. "You can see that the exposed ter-mites no longer feed or groom. You can even watch the termites die."
Research has been conducted at the University of Florida to examine the synergy between Premise and nature, specifically the termite's natural defense system. In one specific study, glass cover slips were sprayed with fungal spores and placed in the feeding and tunneling areas of laboratory termite colonies. In the control colony where Premise was not applied, the spores were removed by termite activity in a few hours. This scenario mimics what happens with termites in the soil on a day-to-day basis; termites destroy fungi by grooming themselves and each other which keeps their soil environment clean.
In the environment where Premise was present, the fungi began developing in just one day. The termites did not re-move the spores. In an outside environment, these spores would proceed to attach themselves to the termites, germinate and cause death.
Research illustrates how Premise interferes with feeding, grooming and colony maintenance in such a way that termites can't protect themselves from pathogenic fungi.
"Premise Plus Nature means value-added termite control," said Dr. Mike Ruizzo, pest control research product manager for Bayer Corporation. "Premise allows nature to take over and destroy the termites."
[/SIZE]
http://www.pctonline.com/Article.aspx?article_id=39807

The active ingredient in Premise is Imidacloprid, a neonic that's widely used on crops visited by bees.

Bayer prides itself that this product kills termites directly and indirectly (Premise Plus Nature trademark!), but claims that it didn't test if this product would also harm bees. (I have got Julian Little's quote somewhere ...)

Karol, any genuine beekeeper who reads this must become suspicious and say: hang on a minute, don't we have bees now succumbing to anything that comes along, isn't their natural defense system wrecked?

Surely that's the natural reaction and now you know that Bayer knew all along, at least since 1997 (See date of the article).



Sorry to have to disillusion you, Karol.

And maybe in the not so distant future, when you realize that some who call themselves beekeepers just won't stop opposing your most laudable initiative to find the truth, you will understand me a bit better.

Doris


By the way, for posting this article in my blog on SBAi I was severely reprimanded by Gavin who is the administrator on that forum and I had my right to post blogs withdrawn.

Don't beekeepers have the right and duty to share this knowledge?


[SIZE=-1]




[/SIZE]
 
Last edited:
{campaigning stuff snipped }

By the way, for posting this article in my blog on SBAi I was severely reprimanded by Gavin who is the administrator on that forum and I had my right to post blogs withdrawn.

Don't beekeepers have the right and duty to share this knowledge?

As you are well aware Doris, your ability to post in Blogs and to post comments on the News front page of the SBAi site were curtailed because of your abuse of that privilege. Most users of the site are there to discuss beekeeping in a friendly atmosphere, not to see the hostility and attention-seeking that seems to be the pattern in your posts. It was made perfectly clear to everyone that campaigning posts were only going to be tolerated in a special area, and you rode rough-shod over that.

Given that you seem to have a problem with self-control, we had to exercise some. You weren't 'severely reprimanded', you just had your posting rights curtailed. However you are still permitted to post in the main area. We gave you a long lead because we knew and liked the Doris of a couple of years ago, and you seemed to be trying to engineer a ban so that you could complain about it elsewhere. Reading your posts here just backs up that impression, and I'm glad that we held back.

This arrived from a friend in my inbox last night. Look out for the twinkle in his eye:

> LOL
> Doris thinks you are 44!
> Nutter.

;)

G.
 
Sorry to have to disillusion you, Karol.

I am far from disillusioned and nothing that you have posted is new to me or changes my views on Bayer.

If you look back at my postings you will see that I specifically stated that neonics increase bee susceptibility to diseases such as nosema and to infestations of varroa. The article just cements what I posted earlier.

In no way does that mean that Bayer Crop Science are in some way "evil".

Let me draw you another parallel. Chemotherapy kills both healthy cells and cancerous cells. The companies that produce them and the doctors that use them know this and know that chemotherapy is harmful to humans. Does that make them "evil" too if they promote their products? Trying to control pests is like trying to treat cancer.

You need to understand that corporations are like 'bee' colonies where individuals within the colony don't have 'super organism' oversight and it takes time to get the message through to the super organism. Those people who 'sell' within these organisations are not scientists and they are plunged into a world of competition where they don't have the skills or knowledge to differentiate between competitive propaganda and actual problems. Similarily, the scientists are focused on specific constrained projects so won't necessarily get scope beyond their boundaries to prove or disprove anything without a regulatory obligation to do so. Finally, corporations are profit driven as they should be which means they will only focus investment where they have to. That's not a 'negative'. That's just human nature and good business sense which requires accomodation in the licensing system.

As for Gavin being an administrator on another forum then so what? Had you refrained from posting slurs and insults then I doubt that Gavin would have censored your postings. Why? Because if as you say he were some 'industrial stooge' (and I wouldn't care even if he were) then he couldn't afford to be so partisan so as to lose credibility with other forum members because such impartiality would lose him his audience within which he would need to remain embedded to continue to be a stooge anyway.

I'm sorry Stromnessbees but if you want to make a positive contribution then you need to get a grip on reality. The great shame of it is that you are on message when it comes to the dangers of neonics but you have lost people's attention through your obsessive hysteria and so your message doesn't get across and that simply delays the day when the 'super organisms' become 'aware' and change their ways or more importantly, when the regulators see the light.
 
foxes and henhouses

As for Gavin being an administrator on another forum then so what? Had you refrained from posting slurs and insults then I doubt that Gavin would have censored your postings. Why? Because if as you say he were some 'industrial stooge' (and I wouldn't care even if he were) then he couldn't afford to be so partisan so as to lose credibility with other forum members because such impartiality would lose him his audience within which he would need to remain embedded to continue to be a stooge anyway.

I think you should care.

Think about foxes running hen houses. They would look after the hens for as long as it suits them and pretend to be nice and friendly, but we all know what happens in the end.

He has lost me and quite a few others as his audience anyway.

As I said above, after a while you will see that what I am saying is not too far fetched.
 
It's not often, but I have to differ on "Trying to control pests is like trying to treat cancer" - it isn't, it's very different - the pesticide companies are keen to sell their products (as is every company), and they go to extraordinary lengths to keep their essentially daft way of farming going - look at virgin forest, it's heaving with healthy life, all maintained by an incredibly complex web of life, then look at monocultures which have killed the life in the soil, and are dependent like any other junkie upon ever heftier "fixes" of artificial inputs (all to the greater profit of Big Pestco), producing crops which are often sorely lacking in vital nutrients and contaminated by the chemicals used to grow them. This is completely unsustainable, and we have to relearn how to live in concert with nature, not bludgeon it intro submission - cancer drugs are there to try to halt the progress of a horrible illness, pesticides cause more problems long-term than they solve.

As for "evil", Bayer's history stinks, and it can't easily be whitewashed http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-firms/11153-bayer-a-history - I don't deny that in a large company, there may be pockets of good practice, but history cannot be denied, and we should learn from it!
 
Last edited:
CCD in Europe? Where? When? How many?

There was a new age traveller site near here that disappeared overnight without trace - does that count?

To Karol. 10, 20% or even 30% annual "losses" aren't at all odd or unusual in a natural situation to maintain the balance in the total number of colonies AND as with all other species there will be ups and downs from year to year and so on. Where colonies are intensively managed that may differ - sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse depending on the individual and their knowledge and skills - it isn't so unusual for the bee keeper to be the cause of a colony failing. What we don't see AFAIK are massive failures above and beyond those percentages.

If you want to know what is actually happening ask the people on the ground.

Chris
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest posts

Back
Top