Dwv

[The Drone Ranger]

in 2005 I had lots of drone laying queens later in the season

But that might have been because I stocked half my hives with queens produced from my best hive.
Yep the nice tempered one who brought in all the honey in 2004

I have 4 apideas and 6 of the horrible white things Kielers?
I don't use them no more they stays in the shed a moulderin

That was also the year when I got stung first on the nose then on the lip when collecting a swarm from a long ladder high up a tree (the ladder also stays in the shed now)

Quite a few other people had trouble that year with queens as I remember so it might have been due to other factors as well

[Trog]

There might be a problem with your proposal, Doris, in that the majority of varroa-free areas tend to be free of large agribusinesses too, therefore the bees in those areas are less likely to be exposed to neonics, etc.

[gavin]

I recommend that anybody else who is asked to supply queens for this study should request that neonic data be included in order to make sure there is no more money wasted on incomplete research.

In that case what is your view of the corollary - studies that purport to investigate the effects of neonics that do it by means of surveys and which do not properly account for all the other variables? This is particularly important for surveys which use geographical information to correlate colony losses with exposure to arable farming and neonics. In this case the other variables that could affect colony loss data might also be correlated with geography. Here are some that may affect colony losses:

- weather, such as rainfall patterns in the preceding year in the main honey gathering and queen mating seasons

- presence or absence of Varroa and the single type of DWV it amplifies

- local pockets of poor advice on controlling Varroa (powdered sugar, anyone?)

- general standards of beekeeping locally, including bee management and supplementary feeding when required

- diversity of forage and length of season of availability of forage

If inferences are being made on possible effects of exposure to neonics (those chemicals with a half-life in a bee of around 5 hours) based solely on survey data and geography, then is *anyone* justified in making statements on possible effects without considering these other, at least equally likely, geographically variable variables that could better explain colony losses?

[Jon]

That was the problem with the Harvard study.
It assumed before the experiment started that Imidacloprid was behind ccd and it ignored half a dozen other variables which would have influenced the results, varroa and nosema levels to name but two.

[Stromnessbees]

In that case what is your view of the corollary - studies that purport to investigate the effects of neonics that do it by means of surveys and which do not properly account for all the other variables? This is particularly important for surveys which use geographical information to correlate colony losses with exposure to arable farming and neonics. In this case the other variables that could affect colony loss data might also be correlated with geography. Here are some that may affect colony losses:

- weather, such as rainfall patterns in the preceding year in the main honey gathering and queen mating seasons

- presence or absence of Varroa and the single type of DWV it amplifies

- local pockets of poor advice on controlling Varroa (powdered sugar, anyone?)

- general standards of beekeeping locally, including bee management and supplementary feeding when required

- diversity of forage and length of season of availability of forage

A good study will take note of these variables and make allowances for them in the interpretation of the data.
This is what makes biologial research so complex, especially when done outside a lab, where you can't exclude/control those influences.

All I am saying is that proximity to neonic treated crops should be included as well.

If inferences are being made on possible effects of exposure to neonics (those chemicals with a half-life in a bee of around 5 hours) based solely on survey data and geography, then is *anyone* justified in making statements on possible effects without considering these other, at least equally likely, geographically variable variables that could better explain colony losses?

Gavin, you have made misleading statements with regards to the duration of the effects of neonics on bees before, let's not go there just now.

[Jon]

Gavin, you have made misleading statements with regards to the duration of the effects of neonics on bees before, let's not go there just now.

Well Suchail, who you were quoting the other week, seems to be what Gavin is quoting re 5 hours.
Maybe you are thinking of the persistence in soil which is much longer.

Page 7
http://www.gesundebiene.at/wp-conten...de-in-bees.pdf

The low residue levels in honey bees probably are best
explained from the fast imidacloprid metabolism by the
honey bee A. mellifera. After exposure to sugar water dosed
at 20, 50 or 100 lg 14C-imidacloprid kg-1 honey bee, halflives
were 4–5 h (Suchail et al. 2004a, b). The major
metabolites are 4- and 5-hydroxy-imidacloprid and olefin.
Olefin peaked after about 4 h, while the hydroxy metabolite(
s) appeared either immediately after termination of
exposure and then decreased in concentration (Suchail
et al. 2004b) or showed a peak after about 4 h (Suchail
et al. 2004a). The total amount of imidacloprid and
metabolites in honey bees decreased with a half-life of 25 h
(Suchail et al. 2004a). Imidacloprid was the main compound
in the abdomen (38% of accumulated 14C) directly
after treatment. In the head, four metabolites were detected
with imidacloprid levels always being B5% of the ingested
dose, and olefin and 4- and 5-hydroxy-imidacloprid being
the main metabolites after 24 and 30 h, respectively. Imidacloprid
and its metabolites were also detected in other
body parts of the honey bee (hemolymph, midgut, rectum)
with highest amounts in the thorax (Suchail et al. 2004a). It
should be noted that dosages applied in these metabolism
studies are much higher than the levels found in the field
and might even be in the toxic range. The relevance of
these data for the metabolism at field-realistic concentrations
therefore remains uncertain.
Acetamiprid was also rapidly metabolized in bees, with
a half-life of 25 min after oral administration with sugar
water (100 lg kg-1) and producing four metabolites. The
major metabolite had a peak corresponding to approximately
48% of the dose after 8 h, and the other three
metabolites reached maximum levels of 22–25%. After
72 h, the bees contained only metabolites. The metabolism
of 14C-acetamiprid seems to be tissue specific and showed
a similar distribution pattern in the honey bee as imidacloprid
(Brunet et al. 2005).

[gavin]

I seem to have (helped) derail this thread into neonics again. Can we keep it for Deformed Wing Virus please?

[The Drone Ranger]

I seem to have (helped) derail this thread into neonics again. Can we keep it for Deformed Wing Virus please?

sorry I was off piste there
Fair enough it is Saturday after all

"Where am I nurse ??"

[Stromnessbees]

I seem to have (helped) derail this thread into neonics again. Can we keep it for Deformed Wing Virus please?

Ok.

So can you please explain how DWV, which has been observed at least since we have had varroa, is supposed to have suddenly caused CCD, and why this didn't occur before the widespread use of neonicotinoids?

A colony which has collapsed from CCD is generally characterized by all of these conditions occurring simultaneously:[34]

• Presence of capped brood in abandoned colonies. Bees normally will not abandon a hive until the capped brood have all hatched.
• Presence of food stores, both honey and bee pollen:
  
  • i. which are not immediately robbed by other bees
  • ii. which when attacked by hive pests such as wax moth and small hive beetle, the attack is noticeably delayed.
  
  
• Presence of the queen bee. If the queen is not present, the hive died because it was queenless, which is not considered CCD.

Precursor symptoms that may arise before the final colony collapse are:

• Insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present
• Workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees
• The colony members are reluctant to consume provided feed, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement.

(Wikipedia)

[Jon]

Ok.

So can you please explain how DWV, which has been observed at least since we have had varroa, is supposed to have suddenly caused CCD, and why this didn't occur before the widespread use of neonicotinoids?

You need to read to paper to see how the arrival of varroa promotes the single most virulent strain of DWV at the expense of other strains of DWV which are less harmful to bees.
CCD cases in the US occured more than ten years after the widespread use of neonicotinoids in the US. No correlation there at all.

(Wikipedia)

Wow!