Bayer: Low level neonicotinoids kill colonies by interference with grooming behaviour

**Jon** · 12-06-2012, 09:38 PM

JTF.
If you trawl through the literature there are dozens of studies which have looked at field realistic (1-5ppb) sub lethal effects of neonicotinoids and they are not causing problems for bees. The studies which are finding problems are looking at levels much higher than this, sometimes 200-400 ppb as in the Harvard study.
If you take a deep breath and look at the available science as a neutral it largely supports the idea that the levels of neonicotinoid found in pollen and nectar are not causing problems for bees.

Where we have problems with these products is:
1. planter dust which is highly toxic and an issue which seriously needs to be addressed. There is now quite a history of bee poisoning incidents building up worldwide from Bavaria to Canada to parts of the US.
2. soil injection or foliar drenches, which is why crops such as pumpkins are causing problems. The ppb bees are exposed to is much higher in these cases and there may well be a case for regulation or prohibition of these methods if bees and other pollinators are put at risk.

None of this is happening in the uk which is presumably why our bees are doing well and colony numbers have recently tripled.
The idea that oil seed rape is bad for bees in the uk is risible as beekeepers take their colonies to this crop and report that they build up well on it.

And re. Schmuck, are you suggesting that his research is flawed in some way other than he has an association with Bayer. In what way has this skewed his results? It is better to give detail rather than leave innuendo.

**Johnthefarmer** · 12-06-2012, 09:45 PM

Jon, thankyou for your well-measured reply.

Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/ Bayer)
I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
Am I right on that?

**AlexJ** · 12-06-2012, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Johnthefarmer

Jon, thankyou for your well-measured reply.

Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/ Bayer)
I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
Am I right on that?

JTF, yes there is evidence which normally gets hidden in the polarized views that instantly mask any real debate.

GLOBAL HONEY BEE COLONY DISORDERS AND OTHER THREATS TO INSECT POLLINATORS, United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2010 gives a quick overview of many of the issues with some references.

Also from part of a post I entered some time ago:

Studies to date have not identified lethal affects on honeybees (trace dietary imidacloprid at field-realistic levels in nectar) but have noted reduced performance of between 6 and 20%.’ This includes effects similar to intoxication and lack of foraging performance.

A meta-analysis of experiments testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide (imidacloprid) on honey bees. James E. Cresswell, Ecotoxicology Nov 2010

Alex

**Jon** · 12-06-2012, 10:54 PM

This report, Xerces Society, which I posted a link to a couple of weeks ago is bang up to date ie includes 2012 literature.

It by no means exonerates neonicotinoid pesticides, in fact, this organization is highly skeptical, but certainly dispels a lot of the claptrap which has been posted recently such as the assertion that neonicotinoids are the cause of ccd.

**Jon** · 12-06-2012, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Johnthefarmer

Jon, thankyou for your well-measured reply.

Nevertheless, Bayer chose not to research the possible effects on bee grooming. (Julian Little/ Bayer)
I believe some reseachers have since shown that grooming, navigation, and other behaviours are affected.
Am I right on that?

Yes, at higher doses rather than field realistic doses.

**gavin** · 13-06-2012, 12:15 AM

All things are possible. However the bottom line is current experience. In rape growing areas bees still build up well on the crop and bring in a honey crop as long as the weather cooperates. Commercial beekeepers who watch the performance of their bees more closely than any of us find that the crop is still good for large harvests of honey and healthy colonies. Winter survival is variable but the beekeepers with the best practices have very low levels of winter loss.

**Johnthefarmer** · 13-06-2012, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by gavin

All things are possible. However the bottom line is current experience. In rape growing areas bees still build up well on the crop and bring in a honey crop as long as the weather cooperates. Commercial beekeepers who watch the performance of their bees more closely than any of us find that the crop is still good for large harvests of honey and healthy colonies. Winter survival is variable but the beekeepers with the best practices have very low levels of winter loss.

Well, that's the answer to my questions, then. Imidacloprid kills Termites at very low levels of ingestion, but Bees are only seriously affected if field realistic levels are exceeded by operator errors.

CLOSE THREAD?
P.S. For over twenty years I dipped my sheep in organophosphates, sometimes checked by a policeman.
P.P.S. Neonics, like many other biocides have a residual, persistent presence in the soil (5 yrs. or more),also, the same amount is usually applied annually on the same land when repeated monoculture, non- rotation is the norm. Is this a productive,benign, sustainable system that should be defended, even supported by beekeepers?There are better methods to promote.

**Neils** · 13-06-2012, 02:45 AM

Again, what's with the false equivalence that not wanting a ban on something means that you support it?

I don't want the BNP, robbie Williams or Manchester United banned either but I can assure you I'm no supporter of any of them.

If "ban pesticides" wants to turn into "ban pesticides and introduce accompanying legislation to force the change in agriculture that farmers inexplicably won't do of their own choice whilst ensuring that yields are maintained, food prices aren't adversely affected and the wider environment is maintained". Then that's something I might be able to get behind, but it's not about that. It's ban product Z. That's it.

It's not through lack of trying to find a smoking gun either, the Harvard study isn't the first to actively try and pin problems in beekeeping to pesticides and yet, to date, they can't without wandering off into situations and dosages that shouldn't occur. Do cockups occur? Sure, "pro-pesticide" Gavin linked a story into here from Canada a couple of days ago which is strikingly similar to infamous poisoning in Germany years ago.

I think it is quite telling that most centres of apiculture aren't looking to pesticides as a major cause either, the conspiracists want me to believe that they're all paid hush money to look the other way and I'm sorry but I just don't buy it. I'm really supposed to believe that every single scientist involved in bee research is corrupt because they don't agree with some doofus in Dorset?

So I'm sorry we don't just fall into line and pin all the troubles in beekeeping on Bayer, there is a forum where you can do that if you want, they'll love another disciple to the cause I'm sure.