[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])   writes:

The book  is no longer available from Amazon or Chapters/Indigo.  Google
lists  no sellers for it any more
 
I think you can still get it from Larry Conner, maybe he will  respond?
 
Stan: 
 
As per debating the issues, I interpreted your statements to  say that 
testing in the US for label registration was simply a matter of  toxicity 
testing in a laboratory, which in fact is only a part of the  tiered approach, 
that is described in the referenced book.
 
As per the newer and older pesticides, I've been involved in this area  
since 1968, and I've seen the pendulum swing back and forth.  In the 60s  and 
early 70s, beekeepers were organized in their concern about pesticides, and  
the test protocols described in the aforementioned book were put  together 
after a lot of meetings and discussion by leading researchers,  EPA, 
beekeepers, and companies.  EPA heard lots of complaints from  beekeepers, and they 
responded.
 
A program was also put in place to compensate US beekeepers for  bee losses 
attributable to pesticides, and EPA provided a laboratory to analyze  
samples.  Then Carter rescinded the program and beekeepers had by  then split 
into two voices nationally, not one consolidated one.   Suddenly, getting paid 
for bee damages became mainly a litigation issue,  and many beekeepers 
became a lot less interested in pursuing damages.   Then, along came trachel and 
then varroa mittes, and pesticides were  literally forgotten, except for a 
few of us studying them and the poor saps  who went out and found piles of 
dead bees in front of  their hives.
 
CCD brought a new awareness of bees, bee problems, and the media and  
public  got involved.  Suddenly, pesticides were re-discovered.   Now, as Stan 
and many others on this list know, pesticide problems continued for  all the 
period from before mites to the present, but reporting of  incidents became 
iffy, and those few who had real problems found little  help from their state 
or provinces, and virtually none from the federal  level.  Pesticides and 
bees had taken a back seat at EPA to waterfowl and  pesticides (after all, 
some of us hunt and eat birds).  I tried on many  occasions over those years 
to get beekeepers and EPA to pay more attention to  bees and pesticides, but 
to little avail until the media picked up on CCD.
 
From the early 1900s through end of WWII,  most pesticides were based  on 
inorganic chemicals - which surprise, also were released by some heavy  
industry - things like arsenic, copper, lead, sulfur.  There were verified  bee 
kills from heavy industry in Europe and in the US dating back to 1914 or  
earlier.   WWII saw the development and use by the military of  DDT.  End of th
e war, DDT and other synthetic, organic pesticides,  especially chlorinated 
hydrocarbons suddenly came into widespread  use.  Just as suddenly, the 
inorganic pesticides and the pollution kills  were forgotten, as the new 
pesticides resulted in dramatic, quick kills,  characterized by piles of dead bees 
in front of hives.  EPA came into  being, and the protocols described in the 
Johansen and Mayer book were  published in the Federal Register.  Everyone 
was focused on bee losses due  to synthetic, organic pesticides.
 
That doesn't mean the inorganic pesticides and pollution incidents   went 
away.  Initially, they were just ignored.  Then we phased out  most of the 
inorganic pesticides and stopped putting lead in gasoline, but the  pollution 
issues are still with us, just forgotten.
 
What happened after WWII, with the help of Rachel Carson, the spotlight  
shined fully on the chlorinated hydrocarbons as the great killer of  bees.  
These chemicals eventually were banned or phased out, and  newer, even more 
toxic chemicals appeared. Organophospohates, carbamates,  etc.  Even bigger 
piles of bees. Yet, varroa eclipsed all of this, not only  in the US but 
around the world.  No one was paying attention to pesticides,  unless one was on 
the  receiving side because someone sprayed the bees  out of existence.
 
The neonics were introduced in the mid-1990s, and no one in the  US noticed 
until the flap about CCD in 2006, when everything became  suspect. There 
were isolated cases with obvious impacts, and you had first hand  experience, 
but I believe the growers were trenching in the pesticide rather  than 
treating seed?
 
That's not to say that you didn't have a justified problem.  There  have 
and I suspect will always be some problems, especially with new products or  
misapplication.  Just a there have been at least a few drift/dust  issues 
over past years.  However, you asked about older and newer  chemicals.
 
I do see differences. The older pesticides were clearly toxic, and the  
piles of bees hard to miss.  Yet, the colonies often recovered.   Those older 
chemicals were frequently in ppm levels when an incident  was observed.  And, 
I know from both my own testing and from the nature of  the modes of 
action, virtually all of those pesticides had sub-lethal  impacts, its just that 
no one was studying and reporting them. 
 
In fact, for every reported 'sublethal' effect attributable to neonics in  
new publications, I think it should be mandatory to benchmark against at 
least  one of the older pesticides to see if it produced the same effect AND 
for  these sublethal experiments, it should be mandatory for the researcher to 
 have the bees in the test screened for varroa, viruses, and nosema to 
avoid  unknown stress factors entering into the study, and confounding the 
results or  producing erroneous conclusions.
 
I learned about the older chemicals and sublethal responses under  DoD 
funded projects where we used bees as a rapid response alarm system for  the 
military in terms of being able to detect releases of chemical warfare  agents. 
 Bees displayed intoxication, rejected contaminated foragers,  changed the 
sounds produced by the colony, showed a wide array of  
behavioral/memory/avoidance responses to assays such as PERS, got lost going  through mazes, 
tried to avoid contact, got defensive,  the list is  long and these types of 
effects can be seen at incredibly low exposure  concentrations.  There's 
nothing unique about sublethal effects that limits  them to neonics.  And, many of 
the sublethal affects that we observed  were transitory, like when you or I 
have to much to drink, and yes, bees get  drunk on alcohol, can die of 
acute alcohol poisoning, and usually sober up, but  I haven't been able to 
determine whether they get hung over.
 
Until just a few years ago, we couldn't look at multiple pesticides using a 
 single sample prep, such as Gastonia can do; we couldn't detect ppb levels 
of  chemical in samples.  And, I  note that just since 2005, limits of  
detection have dropped from 5-10 ppb for many pesticides down to 1 ppb.
 
So, we now get reports of impacts to bees at supposed ppb levels, with no  
piles of dead bees, but with the claim that the colonies are being 
devastated.  But, something else has changed since varroa - we've got both tracheal 
and  varroa mites, we know we have at least 20-22 bee viruses, and that 
viruses plus  varroa, and I think viruses plus nosema,can be devastating.   We've 
 also got two nosemas, hive beetles, and new things like phorid flies, and 
the  spread of africanized bees.
 
In the past, the literature and my own experience concluded - piles of dead 
 bees indicate acute poisoning except in the rare case of some viral  
epidemics.  I've learned NOT to conclude that piles of dead bees are  indicative 
of poisoning  - I've seen too many cases of little or no  pesticide residues 
in bees/pollen/nectar, but lots of evidence of varroa and/or  nosema and a 
diverse array of viruses.  
 
Bees in the 2000s are NOT like bees from the 70s in terms of pests and  
pathogens - there's been a virtual explosion of the numbers of pests and  
diseases and the levels.  So, if you are going to try to discern what's  going 
on, you can't assume that the only thing that has changed is the  introduction 
of neonics.
 
Clearly, the neonics are less hazardous to humans and other higher  
animals.  They target insects.  Personally, the data we've collected  over past two 
years in corn belt and canola regions indicate very low levels of  
clothianidin in pollen/nectar of crops grown from treated seed.  Its  also clear 
that bees just don't much care for field corn pollen.  Given a  choice, they'll 
find something else to collect.  We couldn't find any real  evidence of any 
frequent or high exposures in terms of the amounts in pollen or  nectar 
during the bloom period.  The averages for pollen were barely above  the 
instrument limits of detection of 1 ppb, and the canola nectar average was  below 
the stated detection limit.
 
Other than scattered incidents of planter dust, based on 86 fields, I'd say 
 treating seed is a good way to reduce hazards to bees during the bloom  
period.  The dust problem is solvable - it appears to be a consequence of  
continuous corn growing practices - a form of the old orchard management issue  
of weeds and cover crops in bloom.  The fixes:  1) improve the  stickers 
and carriers, 2) improve the drills with better dust containment, 3)  educate 
the growers and beekeepers - if you drill through cover crops or weeds  in 
bloom, there's a risk to bees.  For those fields with pivot sprinklers -  
turn them on before drilling, or alternately, drill at night.
 
I'm not dismissing your comments about longer term impacts, less ability of 
 the colonies to recover.
 
I  pay close attention to reports by experienced beekeepers of  viability 
and failure to thrive.  Its just that figuring out the real  problem isn't 
easy.  Case in point, the work by Reed Johnson on Pristine,  brood, and queen 
problems.  He accidentally replicated the problem, not  with Pristine, but 
with a chemical he used as a positive control, then  discovered that the 
chemical in question was being put into tank mixes with  Pristine.  Its 
preliminary data, but  it appears that the queen  breeders were right - but they 
were focused on the coincidental phasing in of  Pristine at the same time as 
Dimilin, which they hadn't even noticed.   correct observation in terms of 
abnormal brood development, but it was due to an  endocrine disrupter, not  the 
fungicide.  Reed's working on  confirmation, but I think he's right.
 
Complex issues, not getting any simpler.  One thing Malcolm Sanford,  James 
Tew, and I agree upon - when we started, one was given a quick Beekeeping  
101 course, told to throw in some antibiotic in the spring, and collect the  
honey.
 
Vastly different in these days with a diverse array of pests, diseases, and 
 chemicals.  Gone are the days when a grower applied one fungicides once  
during the growing season (which the Johansen and Mayer book concludes are of 
 little risk to bees).  I've now seen 5-7  fungicide applications to a  
crop, with 4-6 different chemicals, as just another example of the  complexity.
 
So, I believe you Stan, when you report problems.  Its just that  there's 
no simple answer without some serious, thorough investigation.  Too  many 
variables, all in play, at the same time.
 
 
 
 
 

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm