U.S. Beekeepers Lost 23% of Colonies Last Winter; Scientists Recommend Treating Bees for Varroa Mite

[HuckleB]

Source: Entomology Today

According to a national survey of honey bee colony losses conducted by the Bee Informed Partnership, the Apiary Inspectors of America, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. beekeepers lost more than one in five honey bee colonies in the winter of 2013-2014 — significantly fewer than the winter before. But tough times continue for commercial beekeepers, who are reporting substantial honey bee losses in summer as well. Beekeepers who tracked the health of their hives year-round reported year-to-year losses of more than one in three colonies between spring 2013 and spring 2014.

University of Maryland entomologist Dennis vanEngelsdorp, who directs the Bee Informed Partnership, led a team of 11 researchers who conducted the survey. A total of 7,183 beekeepers, who collectively manage about 22 percent of the country’s 2.6 million commercial honey bee colonies, took part.

No single culprit is responsible for all of the honey bee deaths, but their research shows mortality is much lower among beekeepers who carefully treat their hives to control a lethal parasite called the varroa mite.

“If there is one thing beekeepers can do to help with this problem, it is to treat their bees for varroa mites,” said vanEngelsdorp. “If all beekeepers were to aggressively control mites, we would have many fewer losses.”

Read more: http://entomologytoday.org/2014/05/15/u-s-beekeepers-lost-23-of-colonies-last-winter-scientists-recommend-treating-bees-for-varroa-mites/

---

This puzzle is not an easy one to solve.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. Europe blames nicotinic pesticides. nt

[HuckleB]

2. Europe is a mighty big place, with many entities that disagree with one another.

Bottom line: The science is far from settled, but the matter appears to have multiple factors. Ignoring that fact would be wrongheaded.

Bad Science Doesn't Help Bees
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-14/bad-science-doesn-t-help-bees

The Return of the Honey Bees
http://www.ladybud.com/2014/05/08/the-return-of-the-honey-bees/

The Harvard Study on Neonicotinoids and CCD
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-harvard-study-on-neonicotinoids-and-ccd/

[Orrex]

3. They should take away the bees' cellphones, too.

[HuckleB]

4. Well, they should at least get all the wifi out of the bee schools!

[Orrex]

5. Finally a voice of reason!

[HuckleB]

6. I do my best!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. Thanks for links. I read first one, quite informative. nt

[Supersedeas]

33. +1 to that...thanks

[Damansarajaya]

9. The simple fact is that CCD didn't appear until the neoniconoides

were introduced.

Mites &tc have been around forever.

[HuckleB]

12. We get it. You have a preconceived notion.

And evidence means nothing to you unless it supports your preconceived notion. I don't think Vonnegut would be into that kind of thing.

[Damansarajaya]

13. Whoa. The preconception is all yours.

I have raised bees at various times in my life, so I have some personal experience to draw on.

One of the articles above said that CCD goes back to the 19th Century, which if true, would tend to show insecticides are not to blame. (on edit) However, this USDA document claims that CCD is a new phenomenon: http://www.usda.gov/documents/ReportHoneyBeeHealth.pdf.

Also, there's a new Eastern strain of Nosema which is apparently much more virulent than the Western strain.

So I agree that it's complicated. However, I also believe in Ockham's Razor, as you no doubt do too: and to me the simplest explanation is that when the massive outbreaks followed the new class of insecticides and BT corn, it was probably the insecticides and BT corn.

[HuckleB]

14. Actually, your posts make it clear that you're the one with the preconceptions,

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

and that you have no interest in looking at information that doesn't mesh with them. The fact that you may have raised bees, does not matter. The science being done is making it clear that there are many pieces in play. It would be very unwise to pretend otherwise.

[Damansarajaya]

15. I didn't pretend anything.

I looked at the evidence and the simplest answer to me and a lot of other folks (like professional beekeepers) is that the new pesticide introduced at the same time as a major new disease is probably responsible for said disease.

I'm completely open to evidence that leads to other conclusions, and I fully agree that the evidence is still contradictory and hard to interpret.

However, one can in no way RULE out neo-nicotinoids given the evidence presented--that is very clear. So, to say that neo-nicotinoids are probably responsible for CCD is based on a logical interpretation of a lot of good evidence and is in no way proof of bias.

[HuckleB]

16. Thanks for the confession.

You refuse to acknowledge anything but your preconceptions, and you'll spin it any way you have to do so to keep those preconceptions.

[Damansarajaya]

18. For acting like Mr. Logic, you should really review

the ad hominem fallacy, because, dude, that's all you've got.

[HuckleB]

21. Pretending that's all I've got, when you've offered nothing but denialism is just silliness.

[Trajan]

27. HuckleB is often quite right ...

And very righteous ...

Not a nice person ... mean as a cornered raccoon ... you will never see an open hand from HuckleB, unless it's ready to slap your face ...

Being right isn't everything ...

[Damansarajaya]

31. Well, his high opinion of his reasoning powers

are not on evident display here.

He's got some very good evidence that CCD is more complex than just a new pesticide.

However, there're tons of good evidence that CCD is pretty much just what a lot of people think it is: the result of a new pesticide.

In my humble opinion, there's more good evidence on the latter side than the former. But whether that's right or wrong ultimately, what is clearly wrong is assuming anyone who comes to that conclusion has a closed mind and won't listen to reason.

[HuckleB]

34. I have a high opinion of the evidence base.

I'm sorry that you don't.

[Damansarajaya]

60. I do too. There's a lot of good evidence that GMO

crops are safe. On the other hand, the FDA didn't even test them, assuming that a gene from one organism spliced into another organism must be safe--as if putting the gene to produce opium alkaloid into corn is perfectly fine.

Plus, there's a lot of good evidence that GMO crops are unsafe, bad for the environment, and bad for farmers in general (seed saving can be a crime in some areas from cross-pollination, for example, cross-pollination that the farmers don't even want).

[Kat 333]

32. and often not quite right ...

[HuckleB]

35. Prove it.

Thanks.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I don't know from the harvard study

but I read a different one a couple of years ago that seemed to show that minute amounts of neonicitinoids were winding up in the honey fed to larvae resulting in in birth defects such that the 'mid gut' (apparently bees have multiple stomachs or stomach regions) was underdeveloped, leading those bees to be especially vulnerable to mites.

[HuckleB]

30. They may be part of the problem.

To date, the studies showing it are not without serious flaws, and they tend to be very small studies. We need to stay on top of all possible factors.

Here's an interesting overview:

Everyone calm down, there is no “bee-pocalypse”
http://perc.org/articles/everyone-calm-down-there-no-bee-pocalypse

[hedgehog]

39. Two of those links critique the same poorly designed study while the third

dances around the problem. For example, the claim is made that since CCD has been observed since the 19th century, recent changes in the environment are not causing the problem. However, CCD is now a problem not because it was never seen before, but because it now is occurring at a disturbing frequency. Again, while the proximate cause may be a virus carried by the mite, this does not rule out the possibility that the ultimate cause is that colonies weakened by exposure to nicotine based pesticides are then more vulnerable to the mite.

[HuckleB]

41. Can you prove that it's a poorly designed study?

Because the studies showing pesticides to be the problem are very poorly designed, but you didn't mention that.

I think you're showing some very serious signs of confirmation bias. In this case, that's rather dangerous to the bees.

[Damansarajaya]

8. And bee mites are treated by smoking the hive with insecticide.

That's not going to help if insecticides are the problem.

[HuckleB]

11. Maybe you should read the full article before responding.

[hatrack]

56. I don't think it's "smoking" per se, but rather chemical strips left in the hives

However, the first commercial application, Apistan is already ineffective due to inherited resistance in the mites, and CheckMite and some of the other treatments require a lot of special handling.

Drone comb treatment can be effective, but it's kind of intensive - very time-specific, and if you mess up your timing, your hive is almost guaranteed to crash. I dust with powdered sugar, which seems to be pretty effective judging by the numbers of mites on the sticky panel, but it's an ongoing IPM thing, which was definitely not the case 30 years ago.

[Kablooie]

10. Honey is an antibiotic for bees but antibiotics are losing effectiveness.

I wonder if bee killing bacteria is becoming immune to honey just like they are to our antibiotics.

[denbot]

17. This is incidental info, but urban colonies seem to do better then commercial hives.

Here in So Cal we are more likely to lose colonies due to absconding from over crowding. Even then the bees leave their second stringers to carry on.

Urban colonies are far less likely to be exposed to industrial pesticides, and while my girls have had to deal with hive beetles, verona mites so far have not been a problem.

IMHO My home grown honey is far better tasting then the stuff you find in supermarket chains.

[Damansarajaya]

20. +1 nt

[Damansarajaya]

19. On the other hand . . .

http://www.beecharmers.org/

France & Italy ban neonicotinoids. In the past six years, a new group of nicotine-based pesticides have emerged called neonicotinoids. The most common is imidachloprid. Ironically, these were originally manufactured to be less lethal. But about four years ago, French and Italian beekeepers complained that imidachloprid crop spraying was killing their honey bees. So the French and Italian governments banned the nicotine-based pesticides.

Germany bans chemicals linked to honeybee devastation Germany has banned a family of pesticides that are blamed for the deaths of millions of honeybees... The move follows reports from German beekeepers in the Baden-Wuerttemberg region that two thirds of their bees died earlier this month following the application of a pesticide called clothianidin."It's a real bee emergency," said Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeepers' Association. "50-60% of the bees have died on average and some beekeepers have lost all their hives." Tests on dead bees showed that 99% of those examined had a build-up of clothianidin. Source/Full Story: The Guardian, May 23 2008

Jerry Hayes, Chief, Apiary Section, Florida Dept. of Agriculture, Gainsville, Florida: "The interesting thing about the Colony Collapse Disorder is that bees are leaving the colony and not coming back, which is highly unusual for a social insect to leave a queen and its brood or young behind. They are seemingly going out and can't find their way back home.
Imidachloprid, when it is used to control termites, does exactly the same thing. One of the methods it uses to kill termites is that the termites feed on this material and then go out to feed and can't remember how to get home. And it also causes their immune systems to collapse, causing what would be normal organisms to become pathogenic in them (bees).

What 60 Minutes didn't air The cause is imidacloprid, plain and simple," said David Hackenberg, the beekeeper who was the subject of a 60 Minutes story that aired Oct. 28.Hackenberg, who has tended bees his entire adult life, said he told 60 Minutes about this imidacloprid theory in these same direct terms. After editing Hackenberg's comments, however, the venerable CBS program quoted some scientists who said they weren't sure, thereby leaving doubt in everyone's mind. Here's the background you need to understand: The primary product used to control grubs on your lawn, or insects on your fruit trees, or termites in your basement, contains a chemical compound known as imidacloprid, a synthetic nicotine, which is most commonly marketed as Merit. No one debates that imidacloprid is toxic to bees, yet Bayer, the exclusive patent holder from 1988 until this year, denies its product causes CCD. . . .

Much more at link

[HuckleB]

22. Politics, not science.

Ignoring the full picture is wrongheaded, and that's being kind.

[Damansarajaya]

24. Do you work in PR for Monsanto or something?

The "big picture" you keep talking about CLEARLY implicates neo-nicotinoids as the prime culprit.

[HuckleB]

28. No, it doesn't.

You have to ignore a huge amount of research to even pretend that's the case.

Wow!

And the shill gambit just shows that you have nothing but a preconceived notion. Repeating yourself will not change that.

[lovuian]

23. Many studies have come out on the danger of pesticides on Bees

We need to get rid of the pesticides and we will
or the Bees will go instinct

loosing a third of your population every year is heading for extinction

[Damansarajaya]

25. Right, apparently those are just "political,"

for Mr. Science and Logic upthread . . .

[HuckleB]

29. Yes. Unfortunately, not the best studies in the world.

Most of them have serious flaws. Pesticides may be part of the problem, but that is not confirmed, and many people choose to ignore other pieces of the puzzle while chanting about pesticides only. It makes no sense to do that. It's a rather bizarre gamble, in fact.

[HuckleB]

36. Don’t overlook other causes in investigating bee deaths

http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/4523007-don-t-overlook-other-causes-in-investigating-bee-deaths/

[HuckleB]

37. Colony Collapse Disorder: More Dead Bees, More Sloppy Science

http://turbidplaque.com/2014/05/colony-collapse-disorder-more-dead-bees-more-sloppy-science/

[hedgehog]

40. Again, the links in post 36 and 37 reference and critique the same poorly done study linked to

above.

While I agree the Harvard study seems to have been poorly designed and executed, that does not rule out any link to nicotine based pesticides.

[HuckleB]

42. It's a well done study.

Just because you don't like the results, doesn't make it poorly designed.

Try again.

[hedgehog]

45. Did you even read the article at your link? The article is devoted to

debunking the Harvard study by listing the variables that were not controlled for. At best, the Harvard study proves nothing since it was poorly designed.

[HuckleB]

47. Yes, that's the point.

[hedgehog]

38. If as reported, many or all European counties have banned the use of

nicotene based insecticides, we have a natural experiment taking place. After allowing time for the pesticide to clear from the ecosystem, we will have one set of bees not exposed (the European bees) and one set that is exposed (American bees.) If the European hives recover and the American hives do not, that is strong evidence that the nicotine based pesticides are a critical factor in CCD.

As a second natural experiment, my question is whether the varroa mite changed and/or its numbers significantly changed just prior ro the development of CCD. If there was no change in the varroa mite, but a new pesticide was introduced, I would be looking at the pesticide as the ultimate cause of the problem.

[HuckleB]

43. The "bans" are quite convoluted.

Also, choosing to ignore the fact that hives treated for mites are doing quite well is, well, it's ignoring a rather large part of the puzzle.

[hedgehog]

44. I think you are ignoring the possibility that this is a two part problem -

Possible sequence:

Step 1: Exposure to nicotine based pesticides leaves colony of bees unusually vulnerable to mites

Step 2: Mites destroy colony.

Now, if this is the case, there are two options:

1. Stop exposing bees to nicotine based pesticides

This would seem to be the most direct route.

Or

2. Treat the colony with another pesticide to limit the mite population.

Of course, if the pesticides used to control mites are used with a higher frequency than previous practice, the risk of developing a population of mites resistant to that pesticide rises.

[HuckleB]

46. If you had looked at my other posts, you would know that I do not see it that way.

There are many possibilities. It is wrong to ignore any avenue at this point in time. Unfortunately, too many at DU want to focus only on pesticides/herbicides. I think that we must study those possibilities, but we cannot afford to ignore the whole picture.

[hedgehog]

48. Here is another study linking the use of the nicotine pesticides

to increased vulnerability to the gut pathogen Nosema:

Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264871/?tool=pubmed

Again, rather than going the long way around and treating the bees for the gut pathogen, focusing on the nicotine pesticide seems the better route.

Maybe if the bees were totally isolated from other attacks, the use of the nicotine pesticides would be harmless. The bulk of the articles I've seen suggest that while the pesticide does not directly ill bees, it leaves them vulnerable to attack from mites and pathogens that are a normal part of the bees' environment.

[HuckleB]

49. Again, you seem to be convinced of the cause.

A few studies do not make a convincing argument, when plenty of other studies show many other concerns. And the studies about these pesticides are all very preliminary, and that's being kind.

I do not ignore these. Why do so many want to ignore the big picture?

[hedgehog]

51. When the big picture points to combinations of nicotine pesticides and just about any other single

factor under the sun, then I think the big picture points to the common factor: nicotine pesticides.

[HuckleB]

53. It doesn't necessarily point to that.

A few preliminary studies, mostly done by the same researchers, published in less than integral publications do not make that so.

[hedgehog]

50. If anyone is interested - here is a link to the Harvard Study itself:

Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees
winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf

Looking it over, I think there may be a valid criticism that the sample size was too small. However, I think the other criticisms made in the links above are invalid.

[HuckleB]

52. Again, you seem to just like saying "it's invalid."

You don't seem to be able to explain why. This same group of scientists pushed a similar study a couple years ago. Are these folks the Seralinis of bees? Yeah, I know that's not necessarily fair, but it's certainly worth exploring, considering that the publication itself is quite suspect.

[hedgehog]

54. We are at cross purposes here -

1. The Harvard Report concluded that the use of nicotine pesticides is a significant factor in CCD.

2. The articles you linked to attacked the study as poorly constructed and therefore yielding invalid results.

3. While it is possible to claim that the study does not prove that the nicotine pesticides are the sole factor involved, neither does this single study exonerate them.

4. Other studies suggest that it is only in the presence of nicotine pesticides that endemic parasites, fungus and infections become fatal to entire colonies, therefore these pesticides should not be used in the presence of bees.

As an aside; a quick review of the Seralinis controversy suggests that the waters are well and truly muddied there; apparently critics claimed he did not prove that GMO foods cause cancer; apparently he claims the experiment was designed to detect liver and kidney toxicity and happened to suggest a need for further study of a possible connection to cancer. Mentioning the Seralinis dispute is an excellent way to distract from the subject at hand; the cause of CCD.

[Nihil]

55. Thank you for responding calmly & clearly to him.

That makes for a more honest & transparent discussion of the facts
regardless of from which side the distractions & ad-homs originate.

[hedgehog]

57. thank you!

[HuckleB]

59. What other studies?

Two other small studies, one by the same researchers and published in the same questionable journal.

That's your evidence for saying that these pesticides are the main cause of CCD?

Really?

Think about what you're saying. Think about how much other evidence you have to ignore to say that.

[Marthe48]

58. Farmers/growers can control pesticide/herbicide use

Can beekeepers control the mites as well? Or other reasons that may contribute to CCD? The farmers/growers could stop using the pesticides/herbicides to see if the bees stop dying, or not. The famres/growers can start using the products again, but if the bees go extinct, can anyone bring them back? Another species is in danger. We all should be doing everything we can to get them through this ailment. It isn't simple, and it will take time to unravel the causes, but if we can remove one thing from the equation, why not try that?