I was drawn to Table 4 titled Pesticide Incidence in wax pollen and bee samples.  

Fluvalinate stands out above all other chemicals found in 98% of the 259 wax samples, 88% of the 350 pollen samples and 83% of the 140 bee samples. 

What is most disturbing is the mean sample value of 7239 ppb in wax, puts some of the samples above the LD50 level (LD50 =lethal level)  of 15860 ppb as seen in page 12, figure B, titled Wax Fluvalinate.  Uff Dah! 

A logical question that comes from that data table is how representative is this data to beekeepers across America?  

To further gain insight into that question I looked at the 5 top chemicals found in wax, pollen and bee samples and those are

Fluvalinate
Coamaphos
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorothalonil
Amitaz

The rest of the list of chemicals show up in less then 47% each of the category of samples of wax, pollen and bees and the percentages drop off dramatically as you go down the list. 

Its obvious 3 of the chemicals are self applied by beekeepers.  Some further digging into the other two reveals: 

In the US, chlorothalonil (trade name Bravo) a fungicide, is used predominantly on cranberry, blueberries, almonds, peanuts, potatoes, and cucumbers. It is also used on golf courses and lawns and is the 3rd most common fungicide in the USA. .  

Chlorpyrifos, trade name Lorsban or Dursban is an organophosphate insecticide.  The crops with the most intense chlorpyrifos use are cotton, corn, almonds, and fruit trees including oranges and apples.

Since the study indicated on page 2, column one, that the majority of samples were taken from commercial beekeepers, the question for me, a stationary operation is, would a stationary operation that does not use fluvalinate, coumaphos or amitraz and does not perform commercial pollination have the same profile or intensity of chemical exposure as described by the data in this survey? 

The study almost contradicts itself later on page 2 column 2, by noting some stationary samples were also collected, presumably then, they are the minority.  Since we cannot connect the data to its origins we are left to speculate on the real world impacts this survey data may mean.  The tone of the report is rather doom and gloom at times but I question that tone.

A further analysis of the data by regions and beekeeper practices might be very insightful to understand the implications further. 

As a stationary beekeeper who does not use the 3 most common beekeeper applied poisons and does not perform commercial pollination, I can't help but wonder how relevant the data is to my little world? 

             ***********************************************
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