> So, 89.55% of the colonies were NOT neonic.  10.45% were.
 
> In other words, 90% of the damage reports were from the pesticides that
the 
 'ban' the neonic group want us to return to.  

Is this not being a little disingenuous?

These are only the visible effects where there are bodies available for post
mortem; no account is taken of the sub-lethal effects of neonicotinoids as
far as I can see.

Again I must say that in over 30 years of beekeeping we had no problems with
the 'old' insecticides that were only used when there was a measurable
problem.  Now we have difficulty keeping colonies alive.  Is it unreasonable
to consider what has changed in recent years?  Yes, we have varroa - but we
seemed to cope with that for a number of years; it made extra work, but the
bees thrived and I had some of my best ever years.  British weather is
notoriously fickle - but we seemed to cope with that well enough.  Then
neonicotinoids came on the scene and we have struggled ever since.  Is it
unreasonable to question whether they are the root cause of our problems?

Best wishes
 
Peter
52.144442, -1.503509

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