Hi Randy and All

I will reply to your post on the list in order to clear up anyone else's
confusion, as you are mixing up two different studies.

> It appears that the samples in question were collected by an independent
> research team not under the control of Bayer.  The purpose of the study 
> was
> to do a multifactorial investigation of bee health in the maritime
> provinces.  Bayer did contribute money to this project, along with the
> governments of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  But 
> the
> money was contributed no strings attached.

That was the first study.  It was completed;  it did not show much residue;
much to my disappointment Bayer has widely used it to support the safety
of the product for bees.   I have never claimed that the results were
"rigged".   But one thing that I will say is that the researchers never 
found
what I considered to be a reasonable explanation for the hives with
disappearing bees.  The varroa levels in my hives were very low.  There
is much in the archives about this study.  It was before your time on the
list Randy.

> I then corresponded with the independent researcher in charge.  Due to the
> number of samples, analysis of every single beekeeper's samples was cost
> prohibitive, so I am not sure that every one of your samples has indeed 
> been
> analyzed.

Every sample from this study was analyzed.  Not a single sample from the
followup study was analyzed (unless they did some and decided the amounts
were so high they better stop that study).
>
> Some of the results of the study have been reported at Canadian beekeeper
> conferences, and some are in prep for publication.

The first study was widely reported.  The second study has been buried.
The second study came about because in the course of the first study, which
did not show significant amounts of imidacloprid in clover (in the third 
year
after treatment, since the rotation is usually potatoes, grain, hay) the
researcher, Dr. Jim Kemp, found that there was residues in some canola
fields that immediately followed potatoes.  So, he decided to do an in
depth study of this.  I asked Jim in a phone conversation in the fall
specifically who funded THIS study and he said "Bayer".  Actually,  Mr.
Fischer of Bayer also seems to confuse this study with the first one.  But
this second study was funded and shelved by Bayer.
>
> Stan, if you wish further resolution on this issue, if you will privately
> email me the sample dates and locations for which you are wanting 
> analysis,
> I will see if I can determine their fate.

There are WAY too many samples to analyze.  They weighed hives
throughout the season weekly in control and canola groups and took  many
nectar, pollen, leaf, comb, bee, soil samples.  I just want to get some
results from the hives that crashed.
>
> Let me say that in my experience, analysis of single samples often is not
> all that instructive.  We generally learn more from a more complete data
> set.

As I said, this data set included controls and data such as weight, amount
of honey I harvested from control and sample yards......

> Stan, another option is to do as many of us commercial beekeepers are
> doing--simply paying for analysis out of pocket.  Dr. Roger Simonds of 
> USDA
> will run the samples, and test for 170 different pesticides.

Mary Ann Frazier has also said she will analyze for a fee.  I have already
asked Dr. Kemp if he will give me the samples.  (So far no reply).
It is unfortuneate though because I will only do a few, and the context
of all the other data will be lost.  What really makes me mad is that
Bayer milked the results of the first study big time to "prove the safety"
of their product, and then apparently buried this one which was looking
like it showed residues (in the New Brunswick fields).

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