This message was originally submitted by [log in to unmask] to the BEE-L list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU.
It was edited to remove quotes of previously posted material.

To [log in to unmask]

Cathy Rufer forwarded the message at the bottom to me; from the heading
it appears that you wrote it. I'm just a bit curious where you are coming
from. I am concerned, frustrated, upset that you believe beekeepers are
responsible for all problems.

I am one of the 'dirty'  CCD/PPB beekeepers that the CCD working group
sampled several times. After a bit over a year, I have my Penn State/CCD
working group pesticide results back...

Excerpted from that report..."Three colonies had wax residues tested; 
One strong, one dead, and one package.  More wax analysis is likely to
commence shortly".
 BoscalidChlorpyrifosCoumaphosCoumaphos oxonCyprodinilFluvalinate
Strong53118,6001641711,500
Dead001,340780861
Package002,9400062

 

"The levels detected in these samples were by and large lower and had
fewer chemicals detected than other persons sampled"

From the numbers without additional information it would certainly appear
the "beekeeper applied" pesticides are damming. What was not asked and
significantly muddies the water is how the "beekeeper applied pesticides"
were applied. There is no information collected whether the chemicals
levels are in the hives because of legal uses of approved chemicals or
whether they are from beekeeper brews. I can't speak for others, but in
my case, I applied using the 'expensive' legal treatments. In the case of
coumophous, at 1/2 the label rate, ie. one strip instead of two. I ALWAYS
removed the strips as soon as practical after completion of application
which sometimes got to be around 60 days. What is really interesting to
me is that Minnesota Department of Ag had tested my equipment for
coumophous in 2002 trying to explain that I was killing my bees instead
of the (to use your word) "massive" amounts of Sevin XLR Plus being
applied to hybrid poplar plantations adjacent to my beeyards. The MDA
samples were taken in the fall with coumophous strips recently placed in
the hives. Quoted from MDA report "On January 28, 2003 the MDA laboratory
returned the results of the sample analyses with detections of .50 mg/kg
coumophous in bee pollen, 1 .00 mg/kg coumophous in dead bees and 9.10
mg/kg coumophous in propolus" Converting to ppb it would be 500 ppb in
bee pollen, 1000 ppb in dead bees, and 9100 ppb in propolus. Could you
please explain something to me... The last time coumophous has been used
in my hives was 2003. How is it that after close to 5 years my levels
have doubled? It must be something that an errant beekeepers is doing.  

So the question needs to be asked, who is truly responsible for excessive
levels, the beekeepers, or Bayer? Coumophous was presented as 'safe' if
used by label directions. Bayer had to know from previous experience in
Europe that residues would build. How about discussing whether or not
Bayer knew this would happen, and if perhaps they allowed it on purpose
to cover for a release of a chemical that they manufacturer and could not
sell in Europe due to beekeeper outrage at it's effects. Is it possible
that adding it to different carriers alters the expression in the
detection machines. Maybe the NOEL is being done when bees metabolism's
are revved and not when they are dormant. As many know Bayer has cut the
NOEL from the 100 plus ppb to near 10. So what is the true number? Who is
doing the observations? Do 'they' really know what 'abnormal' behavior
is? Maybe 'true' NOEL levels go below instrumental detection
capabilities. It seems that high bee mortality is tied to colony
metabolism.

Changing channels; Instead of 'internal' beekeeper mudslinging it might
be time to consider that perhaps some 'new chemical' can't be found by
the 'normal' analysis, and that perhaps they be part of this CCD mystery.

Here is a telling quote from American Association of Pesticide Control
Officers (AAPCO)  "Last year  we made a formal comment that became an
action item in the December 2001 SFIREG minutes-The point was that the
EPA is continuing to register compounds with chemistries & application
rates that push the limits of the State laboratories capabilities to
analyze for these active ingredients and their significant degredates in
various mantices. Chris Mason attended the IUPAC pesticide congress in
Basel,Switzerland in August, and the increasing range and diversity of
large molecules as future active ingredients continues. As co-regulators
with the EPA we asked that the EPA acknowledge (and thereafter
financially support) the fact that many new active ingredients challenge
the current capabilities of SLA labs. Without this support future
monitoring and misuse actions are seriously in peril and may not be
achievable with current technologies." 
Aren't we all glad that EPA stepped to the plate and only allowed
registration of chemicals which can be detected by chemical analysis. YEA
RIGHT! The 'new' nicotine based chemical class was first allowed use in
2002 without accurate analysis. 

Another channel... I want to add a bit of additional information to your
paragraph, 
"Really the stories and annual enforcement actions in the Dakotas and MN
are painting a clear picture up in the heartland of beekeeping that blue
shop rags and bulk use of fluvalinate, amitraz and coumophos is the
norm". 

I am quite familiar with Minnesota as I am based there. My local
representative has made inquires as to why the Minnesota Department of Ag
is targeting beekeepers for pesticide violations, but ignoring other
violators. In Minnesota fines for perceived violations by beekeepers
generally run $5,000 to $16,000 (2 or 3 beekeepers a year). Who is
talking about or defending the other 467 Minnesota beekeepers (we have
about 470) that may have been searched but nothing inappropriate found?
Fines for improper applications by farmer or spray applicator (if you can
even get the MDA to write one) are generally $100 and are waived if the
farmer agrees to be more careful next time. In my local County, 2 farmers
a year are 'randomly investigated. In that same County in 2006, 5 of the
6 commercial beekeepers were 'randomly' investigated.  An aside... of the
thousands of hives of mine that got killed by off label Sevin XLR Plus
spraying, not one violation was written. Beekeepers are the only
violators!

In Minnesota the real issue is that the MDA wants to keep beekeepers
silent. Most of the world doesn't know this, but in Minnesota spray
application records are private/nonpublic. Records were closed because
the State of Minnesota had to indemnify beekeepers for losses during
grasshopper spraying in the 70's. By closing records pesticide labels
could be broke with little possibility of beekeeper complaints. Only MDA
has access to spray application records. If an incident occurs and a
doctor needs to know what material got sprayed they have to make a
request MDA for that information. MDA, if they feel like it, will ask the
farmer or applicator what was sprayed and when. When the system works
perfectly a Doctor may get the needed information within a couple of
days.  The last couple of years there has been a push by regular citizens
to legislatively re open records. MDA is making an example of beekeepers
as bad pesticide violators to keep them out of this discussion.  

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


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