Hello Randy & All,
Warning long post!
> Bob, no researcher that I know of has blamed CCD problems on commercial
> beeks.
This discussion is about apistan & coumaphos comb contamination. Every
paper put out on CCD always links comb contamination to beekeepers using off
label miticides. That's not blaming commercial beekeepers?
Most of the largest used legal methods. Most commercial (like myself) used
apistan & checkmite!. Apistan worked great and was easy to apply. When
resistance started checkmite was the obvious next step.
*Even* if some beekeepers were using Mavric ( as taught by the USDA before
apistan was registered) it was still tau fluvalinate in a similar dose.
There was no way for off label use of checkmite so sales soared.
The problem as I posted earlier is not fluvalinate or coumaphos as it is the
chemical which happens when both are present in the comb wax.
We were shown slides at an ABF convention of the mass spec spike of
fluvalinate, of coumaphos AND the huge spike on the mass spec when both are
present.
I appreciate the civil nature of the discussion and is an important
discussion with many lurkers listening.
> Bob, in the universe of beekeeping reality, the vast majority of
> commercial > beeks used ag formulations of fluvalinate and amitraz, and a
> number used
> off > label coumaphos. Those beekeepers indeed had the most highly
> contaminated
> combs.
With the exception of coumaphos there are some methods to use the others
which end up with the same dose of product but most large beekeepers simply
purchased the strips for the below reason.
those with employees could be in for a big lawsuit if an employee was hurt
mixing or placing an off label treatment.
My contacts are vast and I have never heard of off label use of coumaphos
other than the case Jeff Pettis told us of about a northern beekeeper which
killed all his hives using off label coumaphos in Florida.
Coumaphos contamination comes form one source. Bayer Crop Science and
checkmite strips (packing a full 1.4 gram of coumaphos per strip).
> Contaminated combs likely affect the bee immune system, and cause all
> sorts
> of problems, but do not fit the symptoms of CCD.
Again we are discussing comb contamination. Not CCD (whatever the word CCD
means)
>
> But now you have me totally confused.
> You have oft stated that on this list, and in ABJ, that CCD doesn't exist.
When I see a dead hive which can not be explained by another possible
conclusion other than the *word* CCD then maybe i will come on board.
> So Bob, how about setting us all straight--in your mind, does CCD exist or
> not?
The symptoms described as CCD all fit various known beekeeping issues.
Including a hive left with brood and a small amount of nurse bees and a
queen. A pesticide kill in which the bees die in the field ( Penn cap M)
fits exactly and I have seen plenty of those.
>
Bob, money was spent researching all possibilities. It was totally
> appropriate for researchers to look for a novel pathogen for what appeared
> to be a novel disease. You are being silly.
So the solution is to keep printing money or borrowing from China to
continue the search for the "pathogen at the end of the rainbow".
You may have heard of N ceranae. It
> appears to be causing many beekeepers substantial problems.
I sure wish U.S. researchers would have discovered earlier as would have
saved me a bunch of money. Been in the U.S. how long?
Bob, I never said that anyone stated that coumaphos was a good thing. I
> merely reported some surprising actual data.
Data which contradicts all published research.
>>Nosema ceranae & KBV not a cause of concern.
The above was what we were told could not be related to CCD. Danny Weaver
questioned openly that we should be looking at nosema ceranae & KBV as huge
issues in looking for the cause of ccd . Was in all theCCD samples 100% yet
Penn State said no the root of CCD is IAPV ( and i think referred to
Australia packages as being the source 17 times).
>
Bob, after you've sold your property, could you please explain to us why
> you > haven't even mentioned what you have repeatedly stated is the cause
> of our
> problems--the neonicotinoid insecticides.
Until research is presented showing the neonicotinoids are safe around bees
then I have said about all I can say. Each person has to make up their own
mind. I personally do not buy into the conclusions of the Bayer paid for
research. Each month more and more questions arise concerning their
conclusions.
I at least read the studies and take a position. Sitting on the fence is
what birds do.
> (BTW, many beekeepers who suffered from colony collapses never used
> Checkmite or any form of coumaphos).
Quote from page 22 of the Reed Johnson article speaking to research of
Frazier:
"It should come of no surprise that chemical analysis of brood wax collected
from CCD and healthy colonies were always found to contain coumaphos and tau
fluvalinate "( Frazier et al. 2008)
It seems there are those which admit to using checkmite and others which say
my high levels must have been picked up off plants.
"always found to contain coumaphos and tau fluvalinate"
Always pretty well sums up my case.
> 1. Does CCD exist?
I see young adults which still believe in Santa Claus. many researchers
believe in CCD in order like those kids to get presents from tax payers!
Until I truly see a problem I have never seen before I will say to me CCD
is simply the new word Americans use to describe dead hives . Even made its
way into the dictionary.
Is there indeed a transmissible pathogen that takes
> down healthy colonies, leaving brood, stores, the queen, but no older
Possibly but from what I know about research would have been found by now. A
new pathogen was the first thing looked for but no cigar.
> 2. Can colonies thrive on combs that have miticide residues or not?
Depends on the level and the amount of time which has passed since the last
treatment. Chemicals like the combination of fluvalinate & coumaphos on comb
dissipate over time but not in a year! My research seems to indicate around
five years *if* both has been used for 10-13 years prior. Longer is apistan
was used in spring and checkmite in fall the last few years.
Page 22 of Reeds article ( with my capitals and comments on years of
chemical use)
" Many pesticides including coumaphos & tau- fluvalinate are extremely
soluble , meaning that these compounds move into the wax component of the
hive where they can reside for MANY YEARS and potentially build up with
REPEATED Apistan & Checkmite treatments ( 10 years apistan & 3-4 years later
checkmite). BOTH compounds survive the wax recycling process and can readily
be found in the wax of new foundation" ( Martel et al 2007)
> 3. Is the main problem with colony collapses due to neonics or not?
Each country , area or case is not the same. Certainly some collapse are in
my opinion.
last question. Whew! My fingers are cramping!
> 4. Is Nosema ceranae a serious problem or not?
Depends on situation. The most issue I get asked is about nosema ceranae. My
last presentation at the Kansas beekeepers was on the subject.
Nosema ceranae never was a problem in my entire outfit. Only in areas. I
like to give credit where credit is due and I thank jerry brumenshenk for
the advice on removing nosema spores from equipment with Clorox water.
Worked for me!
I can say that many commercial beeks had serious issues with nosema ceranae
and they had been feeding fumigillin in syrup per label. However the drench
seemed to help but in my case it took spraying the frames with a clorox
solution to eliminate the problem.
My solution is always to solve a problem and move on rather than simply
place a band aid.
Once you determine you have an issue with nosema ceranae the options are
only a few. In my opinion drenching alone would not have solved my problem.
bob
>
***********************************************
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
|
