Randy wrote,  and I think his post was coloured by anger at Bob, as my post 
will now likely be coloured by anger at him:

>>Stan & I are still waiting on the results of why his hives crashed! What
>> exactly did Bayer say when you asked about our request? You did ask the 
>> one
>> single request I made of my beekeeper rep to the Bayer dialog didn't you?
>
> I'm surprised that Stan didn't answer this

What was the question?  Bob didn't ask anything of me.  The big question is 
the one that I asked specifically of Dave Fischer when he was on the list, 
and he did not reply to it  (Why were they not analyzing at least a few of 
the samples from the yards which appeared to have suffered?)  He promised to 
look into it and has never got back to us on the list.

> (Stan who just posted that his bees are thriving on neonic-treated 
> canola).

I did NOT say thriving, or even intimate that.  I said they appeared to not 
have suffered (so far, I am monitoring carefully this year their wintering). 
And I certainly did not say "neonic-treated canola".  I specified carefully 
that all the canola here is treated with thiomethoxam.  The growers tell me 
that this seed treatment does not provide season long control (which 
imidacloprid does provide, and thus all the problems associated with its 
long half life).  It only provides control of flea beetles for them at the 
young seedling stage.  In the unpublished data which I provided to this list 
from the researcher (the data which led to the intensive study on my hives) 
the levels of imidacloprid and thiomethoxam in the canola nectar and pollen 
in Ralph Lockhart's hives in New Brunswick was roughly the same (in the 2 to 
4 ppb range).  The big difference is that the thiomethoxam was put right on 
the canola seed.  The imidacloprid was from soil residue from the previous 
years crop of potatoes.  Ralph has told me that he did not see see hives 
crashing on the canola (as I have not seen).  Please note that now there is 
a BIG difference in the application rate of imidacloprid on potatoes, 
because most growers treat the potatoe set instead of soil injection or 
foliar spraying.  There is much less used per hectare.

> I researched Stan's question deeply last year.

Give me a break!  You talked to Dave Fischer.  It was before his time, and 
he obviously knew very little about it, and only secondhand information. 
You talked to the researcher on the phone.  The same researcher who it seems 
would just like the whole thing to go away.  Did he actually send you data 
from the study?  What was your opinion of the differences in mortality 
between the control group and the study group?  Did you look at the weights 
(there were hives in both groups weighed regularly)?  Did you look at the 
disease incidences in both groups, because these were looked at, as well as 
number of frames of bees.

>Bayer was only marginally involved in the study.

They funded it.  Completely, I believe.

> The bottom
> line, as I informed Stan, was that the poor guy went through a devastating
> divorce in the middle of the trial, and the samples degraded in his 
> freezer
> while he put his research on hold.

I am astounded Randy!!!!  You asked me to drop the subject of the study of 
my bees,  several months ago,  so as to not drag the personal circumstances 
of the researcher into public.  And then YOU POST IT!  I never mentioned a 
thing about them in all my posts.  The divorce was NOT in the middle of the 
trial.  All the data collection was completed.  The only thing remaining was 
to analyze the samples taken.

He has never said to me that the samples degraded.  He has always said they 
were stored carefully and always frozen.   Dave Fischer has expressed some 
doubt as to whether they would still be good,  but offered no factual 
information about storage time.   In asking  Ms. Frazier about my paying for 
a private analysis she said that she did not know how long frozen samples 
were good for.  I expect Dave Fischer MUST have some facts on this.

>  His *personal* feeling
> from the data that he did collect was that he could see no problem from 
> the
> neonics, but that is not citable data.

The second last time that I saw the researcher (the last time was at the 
airport where he was seeing off a speaker at a conference on native bee 
pollination)  was at the university where I finally cornered him as he was 
leaving and he brought some data out into the parking lot.  It was clear to 
both of us where the "problems" were, and we both agreed easily on what 
priority to give which samples.  Neither of us expected that Bayer would 
analyze all the samples.

> I am currently in Canada, and have had a chance to speak to folk up here.
> It seems that Stan may have a legitimate complaint, when bee forage (such 
> as
> clover) is planted following potatoes treated with granular neonics.  The
> problem appears to be related to application details by the farmer, rather
> than the pesticide per se.

If a pesticide is a problem in years FOLLOWING its intended use.  Then I 
would say that is a problem with the pesticide itself.  And that is why I 
really do not like you lumping all the neonicotinoids together.  The half 
lives are very different.

> Allow me to quote from a recent article of mine in ABJ:
> "Dennis vanEnglesdorp notes that coumaphos residues have a positive
> correlation with CCD.  .....

Dennis has a paper which is currently submitted for review regarding a 
feeding trial of imidacloprid in pollen with some very surprising results. 
I will reserve comments until the paper comes out, so we can speak of 
specifics.   But I would note that when he addressed our Maritime Provinces 
Bee Tour this summer he said that initially it looked as if imidacloprid 
could be discounted as a major factor in causing CCD.   But after seeing the 
results of the feeding study they conducted he may have to rethink that.  In 
personal correspondence after he returned from Europe he also told me to 
look for several very interesting papers to be published soon about 
imidacloprid.  I assume that the guttation paper was one of them.

> Bob, I still stand ready to forward any of your requests for information 
> to
> Dr Dave Fischer ("Bayer" actually has a name).

Well I have a request, Randy.  Bayer obviously did some study on termites 
regarding imidacloprid (under the brand name "Premise"), enough so that they 
trade marked the phrase "Premise Plus Nature" because, as they claim in 
their ads for Premise, it weakens the immune system of termites so that the 
colonies die of other diseases.Could we have some citations for papers on 
how this effect works?  Are the papers in the public domain, or are they 
like the paper on soil residue of imidacloprid on PEI (so private that even 
though it was submitted to a government agency for registration of the 
insecticide an access to information request could not
pry it loose).   It would be nice if Dr. Fischer would give you those papers 
on how the termites immune system was affected so you could inform the list.

Stan, in Prince Edward Island,  46 N,  64 W 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L