On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:39:11 -0500, Aaron Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the BEE-L list at 
LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU.

>So what is my point?  
>Your discussion ticked me off and I thought that a bit more information
>might put a bit different spin in at least some peoples minds.
>Jeff Anderson
>California Minnesota Honey Farms





Jeff



First let me say I am familiar with your name and your experiences with MDA etc and your 
appearance in Pollen Nation. More publicity should have been focused on the unethical behaviour 
of an agency(s) which is supposed to protect the environment, farmers and public. We could have 
long discussion about that whole issue itself. Its also clear that retribution has been the game 
since your successful court cases (frequent enforcement,  Blaine White state apiarist moved to the 
back 40,  etc)

Thank you for sharing your data from Penn state and frank discussion. Not many beekeepers 
would share that kind of information and it takes some courage. 

I worked at a large Fortune 500 chemical company lab for 12 years in a research position. My first 
reaction to your data is the lack of data points.  A sample of one from each "condition"  is not 
much of a data point.  to compare samples from today to years past is difficult unless you have an 
average ppb from a sample of 10-25 hives from both time periods and the same test equipment 
and technique.   there's just too much variation in people, nature and in a bee hive to look at one 
hive and tell anything much less try and correlate that with alive or dead or whatever.  That could 
explain why the data makes no sense to you the end user.

My discussion with Bob Harrison concerned his railling on Imidacloprid and his selective use of 
Kim Flottums mini-report from the CCD team. Bob completely ommited the mention of beekeeper 
chems twice in my discussion with him.  While I count on my bees for a living, my background in 
science and research training tells me that the evidence on Imidacloprid is amazingly scant. I'm no 
fan of Bayer or Monsanto either but its just not there!  When I put my science cap on I try to look 
at the data and not pick sides etc. I want the answers as bad as you or the next guy.  After 
working for a large chemical company I have a different opinion seeing the other side. Conspiracy 
theories of secret molecules and an intent to circumnavigate the system and potentially do harm 
to honeybees just is hard for me to swallow. You can't hide much in our digital world. If this were 
the case the secrets would leak out.  Most people are good ethical people....especially those 
committed to a life in science. 

I believe its disingenuous for the industry to point the finger at Imidacloprid when we have little 
evidence but plenty of documented chemical use internal to the industry.  What is ABF or anyone 
doing to minimize beekeeper chem use? some packers have raised internal specs for some of 
these materials.  you know as well as I that bulk jug use has exploded since 2000. its a problem 
that should be solved for many reasons. its crazy really - good people are being punished,  some 
of them my friends - it threatens the whole industry if splashed in the media.

I and some beekeepers i know in the upper midwest and Canada do not pollinate, we rotate out 
comb, never use TM or  tylosin (shake and bake all EFB and AFB)  do not use any mite treatments 
that build up in wax. We have not had any unexplained losses either and we're not the only ones 
that have the same experience or with big honey crops and hives boiling over with bees.  I'm not 
saying we're the perfect beekeepers and we have all the answers. We're just average joe's like you 
trying to keep bees for a living but have rejected the old way of doing things as they did not work 
anymore.

I don't care if EPA registered fluvalinate or comophous for use in a beehive. Go look at Jeff Pettis's 
work or others on the effects of those two chems on reproductive problems with queens and 
drones. I can't get any decent queens anymore from CA producers and I'm fairly certian I know the 
reason why after visiting some of them in CA. Its comb contamination to blame for 40-50% 
superscedure and its supported by the research. Since I started raising my own queens or paying 
extra for queens from smaller producers who comprehend the problem with those two chems, my 
bees look the best I have seen since the 1990's

While we do not have defiinitive answers on Imidacloprid , I cant say we know everything there is 
to know about fluvalinate and compouphos either and who is looking? the bottom line is those 
materials are obsolete in many peoples minds . As a nationally visible bee researcher who I'll leave 
unnamed would likely say - don't put that stuff in your hives!

CCD looks to be a difficult problem to answer - there is a chance we'll never find out the cause 
since for every real CCD case is a "me too CCD case" and there are from my stand point way too 
many variables to make sense of anything.

I feel we have little to go on with Imidacloprid, what we do have control over is what we put into 
our hives and where we keep them . Blaming external issues while we have a messy house 
ourselves is a tough one for me to swallow and I'm not alone as I get fan mail for my views in 
addition to very few unfavorable.

I beleive if the industry is waiting for a "cure" for CCD or to see Imidaclpoprid delisted is not a 
game plan for success. We have bees now ( russian, VSH, purvis, others) that can be run with no 
treatments, I know it because I'm running some with success and so are more and more 
beekeepers each year. We also have soft treatments like apiguard, formic and OA (not legal) that 
do not contaminate comb.

Have you tried to keep say 10 pallets of resistant bees (well mated) on clean ( or new) comb away 
from pollination and untreated? It might be a good experiment to satisfy your own concerns about 
systemics and farm inputs.  If they do well move them into Ag areas or pollination and see if they 
change. 

My point is there are plenty of unknowns here in the equation and no end in site as agriculture 
looks more and more like industry not farming. Beekeepers have always been an independent 
tough breed that solved their own problems, I don't see anyone 100% solving our biggest 
problems really - its in our own hands to mitigate the situation and  I feel it demands a change in 
practices.

My view is focus on the variables we can control,  cause I have no faith in mega companies or the 
government to solve or mitigate our problems.

I'm sorry if you felt offended by my comments that were directed to Bob in the context of a 
dfferent discussion. I feel I am trying to do what's best for my passion, my proffession, 
beekeeping which seems to be in deep trouble. We may have more in common then first 
impressions.  I do not beleive my posts online have said that beekeepers are the cause of all the 
losses either although Bob may have taken it that way. This should not be a blame game in either 
direction.  I'm saying lets have a frank discussion on the issues of comb contamination and 
habitual chem use in the industry as part of the overall bee crisis discussion.  

While you may apply treatments per label many do not. Have you stopped to think about how the 
chems on the PPB diagnosis list were likely applied per label while much of the amitaz, 
comouphos and fluvalinate are not?

With all of the attention on bees the stories of off label or labelled uses is going to seep into the 
mainstream. What happens if the CCD researchers find a combination of problems that include 
self contamination? What a horror show for all of us big and small as those stories get big time air 
play now and are rarely accurate.

Finally I feel it will be a lost opportnity if all the new monies for bee research does not include 
some kind of " Best Practices" methodology that is promoted by ABF,  AHPA , USDA and other 
leaders in the industry. Best practices should not include anything but soft chem use and no 
preventative antibiotics either or seasonal depopulations.  Even if its a slogan at first, this kind of 
stance could be critical if the mainstream media starts publishing stories on beekeeper chem use 
or we are in public battle with Bayer and they point to certain beekeeper practices. Also for other 
beekeepers it becomes a mantra for what we stand for and keeps us in good favor with the 
Greens/Granolas who already support us in theory and are concerned about bees.

Big companies point to that kind of PR too when being challenged - its just good business sense 
and I don't see the US honey industry doing anything to protect their rear end. 

What do we stand for ?  habitually using chems in our own hives? 

Also within the context of what we can control why is not country of origin labeling being pushed?  
With the beef problem and crap from China, honey could be caught up in the hysteria next. 
Beekeepers deserve a fair price for our products and the consumer deserves to know where their 
honey came from . If that could be accomplished I would think made in USA honey could sell at a 
premium and it should its better honey.

I've offered in good faith,  ideas of where to go next for the industry. Fixating on presently 
unsubstantiated claims concerning farm chem use is IMO wasting precious time. Do you really 
believe that if Imidicloprid went away tomorrow that all would be well in the heartland and we 
could go on contaminating comb for another 2 decades? 

What solutions do you have for fixing the crisis in honeybees and stabilizing the pollination and 
honey industry that many folks count on to make a living? 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************