Bee die-off perplexes scientists

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

bees

Postby marmot » Mon May 07, 2007 12:15 pm

thanks chiggerbit
marmot
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Mon May 07, 2007 2:34 pm

Pioneer Hi-Bred's website boasts that their genetically modified (GM) Liberty Link[1] corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the herbicide becomes "inactive in the corn plant."[2] They fail to reveal, however, that after you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become reactivated inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a gene that was inserted into the corn might transfer into the DNA of your gut bacteria, producing long-term effects. These are just a couple of the many potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say put the public at risk.


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archi ... tml#063497
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby iridescent cuttlefish » Mon May 07, 2007 4:04 pm

Turns out, at least according to the most comprehensive look at the bee story to date (Please Lord, not the bees), that while genetic modification and many other factors have played a role in this mysterious event, what the media and the scientists have not told us is that the only bees affected are the so-called "super bees" pushed by breeders and the commercial pollination industry far past their natural size and rate of pollination.

It's the destruction of habitat & diversity that is ultimately responsible--capitalism as we know it.

Organic bees are not affected!!

Frankenwheat is murder, but in this case it's our way of life that's the real killer.
iridescent cuttlefish
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:53 pm
Location: http://wwwtomorrowtoday.blogspot.com/
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Mon May 07, 2007 11:46 pm

iridescent cuttlefish wrote:Turns out, at least according to the most comprehensive look at the bee story to date (Please Lord, not the bees), that while genetic modification and many other factors have played a role in this mysterious event, what the media and the scientists have not told us is that the only bees affected are the so-called "super bees" pushed by breeders and the commercial pollination industry far past their natural size and rate of pollination.

It's the destruction of habitat & diversity that is ultimately responsible--capitalism as we know it.

Organic bees are not affected!!

Frankenwheat is murder, but in this case it's our way of life that's the real killer.


Amazing article, iridescent cuttlefish -- thanks for that. Why am I not surprised?
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Tue May 08, 2007 12:22 am

Anybody have any links for how to raise bees organically?

For those who can't raise bees, but are interested in helping them out, planting soapwort from plant or seed gives a much-needed early pollen source.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Fri May 11, 2007 9:57 am

I've wondered if the bee plight has anything to do with all the du that's being released in Iraq. Dust can travel all over the world.

http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/african_dust/
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tal » Fri May 11, 2007 12:07 pm

Anybody have any links for how to raise bees organically?



OrganicBeekeepers


BushBees


BioBees
tal
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Fri May 11, 2007 12:24 pm

Wow, thanks!!
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby ninakat » Fri May 11, 2007 12:32 pm

great links, tal -- thanks

I've decided to wait a year to get into beekeeping -- I was determined back in February to start this endeavor, but had to cancel my "package bees" order because of lack of preparedness. As it turns out, I'm glad because this information about organic bees will change my entire approach. Many thanks to all of you who posted this information.
User avatar
ninakat
 
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:38 pm
Location: "Nothing he's got he really needs."
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Sweejak » Sun May 13, 2007 1:14 pm

In an interview for The Observer newspaper, Kaatz said: "I have found the herbicide-resistant genes in the rapeseed transferred across to the bacteria and yeast inside the intestines of young bees. This happened rarely, but it did happen." Asked if his findings had implications for the bacteria inside the human gut, Kaatz replied: "Maybe, but I am not an expert on this."

The Observer said Kaatz was reluctant to talk about his work until it is officially published and reviewed by fellow scientists. The reports come a day after Britain's Agriculture Minister Nick Brown urged farmers to destroy crops contaminated with genetically modified seeds. Up to 600 farmers in Britain are believed to have inadvertently planted more than 30,000 acres of oilseed rape contaminated with GM rape seeds, supplied by Anglo-Dutch seed company Advanta. Similar crops have been planted elsewhere in Europe, including in France, Germany and Sweden. The French and Swedish governments have already announced they are ordering the uprooting of the crops.


http://www.rense.com/general/barrierss.htm
User avatar
Sweejak
 
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:40 pm
Location: Border Region 5
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Thu May 17, 2007 7:18 pm

One Expert’s Long View: There Is No Bee Crisis. I don't know anything about bees but I reckon the beard guy does.

I, for one, have said many times that CCD may be an old problem, never resolved, simply cycling. As mentioned before, reports of disappearing disease (DD) go back to the 1890s. Widespread and severe DD was documented in LA, TX and other states in the early 1960s. Bill Wilson (a USDA Honey Bee Researcher) in a 1979 paper indicates that something virtually identical to what we are now seeing happened in 1975, and was reported in 27 states.

Richard Hoagland also has a story to tell. It's the torsion fields. He almost gets into his theory but decides to wait until part two.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Thu May 17, 2007 8:26 pm

The bane of Iowa pastures, multiflora rose, is blooming now. I find that I'm liking the nuisance rose a bit better this year. I saw a few honeybees on the blooms.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby zuestorz » Sat May 19, 2007 4:35 am

Hoagland and Wilcock advance an all embracing theory involving the science of Torsion Fields, the fundamental evolution of our Solar System's astrophysics and suggest that government censorship of TF (& climate change) research is also playing a major role in a scenario in which CCD is a symptom.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Bees/thebeesneeds.htm
User avatar
zuestorz
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:25 am
Location: the shadow of that extra mural
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby zuestorz » Sat May 19, 2007 4:38 am

:oops: Jingofever beat me to it - should have read the entire thread before posting :x
User avatar
zuestorz
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 3:25 am
Location: the shadow of that extra mural
Blog: View Blog (0)

Blame Bayer

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun May 20, 2007 1:55 pm

Blame Bayer

Image


http://www.beekeeping.com/articles/us/g ... ris_us.htm

française Demonstration against Imidacloprid
18th December 2000, Paris - FRANCE

Coordination des Apiculteurs de France:

Syndicat National d'Apiculture
Syndicat des Producteurs de Miel de France
Union Nationale d'Apiculture Française

Translated by Peter Dillon pdillon@club-internet.fr



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on the picture to enlarge

You can use these pictures, just give the credit : "Gilles Ratia - www.apiculture.com"





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPOSITE DOCUMENT OF PRESENT POSITION RELATING TO GAUCHO / SUNFLOWER and BEES

Coordination des Apiculteurs de France :

Syndicat National d'Apiculture
Syndicat des Producteurs de Miel de France
Union Nationale d'Apiculture Française

Paris,18th. December 2000.

PREAMBLE : a press communication dated 16th. December 1998, produced by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, announced that:

The commission (Commission de toxiques) charged to evaluate the impact of Pesticides have studied the dossier "GAUCHO" (Imidacloprid - BAYER). Following these studies, it has published the following advisory comment

"Taking into account recent studies evaluating the impact that Imidacloprid could have on the activity of bees when used as a seed treatment for sunflowers ", the Commission des Toxiques during its meeting held on the 16th. December 1998 considered that: The examined data does not allow for a conclusion of indisputable effect of imidacloprid or its metabolites on bees and the production of honey.
Inversely, it is not possible to totally exclude the effect of Imidacloprid and its metabolites, taking into account the toxic effects of minute doses, doses that are in keeping with those concentrations potentially present in the plants during the period of harvest.
That complementary study should be undertaken to clarify the following points:
The metabolism of the product in parts of the plant accessible to bees.
The limit of the toxicity of the product and its metabolites for bees and the quantities present.
The persistence of imidacloprid in the soil and the presence in crops that have not been treated.,


( ... )"


We are still at this date uninformed of the responses brought by BAYER

On the other hand, the results of work undertaken between 1998 - 2000 by researchers in public institutes have been supplied to us after their presentation to the Commission des toxiques, 15th. November and 13th. December 2000.
It appears to us that the results we present below entirely respond to the questions raised by the Commission des toxiques.

The metabolism of the product in parts of the plant accessible to bees.

Dr. J.M. Bonmatin (CNRS Orléans )
During the growing period of sunflowers treated with GAUCHO, the levels of Imidacloprid decrease. From the start of capitule formation, this level shows an important and rapid increase. Depending on the plant variety, the average value in the capitule at the beginning of the flowering period varies from 5 to 6 ppb. Equally in maize, Imidacloprid is found throughout the plant, notably in the panicle (average: 4 ppb.) and in the flower (average: 10ppb.). Sunflower and maize both allow for an important bioavailability during the flowering period. In the environment wherever sunflowers are treated GAUCHO and also whenever it was so for maize (GAUCHO sites in field trials undertaken by ACTA in 1998), the pollen from traps commonly contained around 5ppb Imidacloprid.
M. Fr. Laurent ( INRA Toulouse )
Tracing and measurement of the radioactivity at different ages and in different parts of the sunflower plant). In stem sections as in the leaves of one-month-old plants, one finds the occurring gradient, except that the leaves are10 times more charged in Imidacloprid than the corresponding stem section. The metabolic profiles in the different plant organs all show a peak mainly of Imidacloprid (50 -80%). It is established that the half-life of the original molecule by itself in sunflower is in excess of 60 days. At the moment of flowering, there appears to be a transfer towards the capitulum, notably towards during the sepal and outer edge seed formation. It is suggested that this mobilisation is able to cause even higher levels of contamination of nectar and pollen produced by the inner rings of florets. In pollen, the global residue measurement of Imidacloprid is in the order of some ppb.
The CETIOM.
The nectar of sunflower contains between 0.4 and 5.0 ppb. total residue, it being taken that these total residues is essentially of Imidacloprid.
M. Kl. Wallner (Univ. of Hohenheim. Germany)
The nectar of Phacelia, treated with GAUCHO (50 g active material/hectare), taken from the crop of the harvesting bees contained between 3 and 10 ppb. Imidacloprid. The pollen collected by the bees was charged at the same level. (Toxicological studies accept that fruits such as apples and peaches may be put on to the market for human consumption, if the residues of Imidacloprid do not pass the limit of 300 ppb. Consequentially, the presence of Imidacloprid and or its metabolites at a level of a few ppb. in the produce from hives should not pose any problem in terms of human health.)

2. The limit of the toxicity of the product and its metabolites for bees and the quantities present.

Dr. M.E. Colin ( INRA Avignon )
The frequentation, characterised by differing criteria, at a source of syrup either contaminated or un-contaminated - was studied in semi-controlled conditions. For Imidacloprid, the negative effects are still present at 6 ppb. At 3 ppb., the effects are still present under certain criteria. (BAYER communicated in January 1997 during the A.N.P.P. Congress that the first effects on the bee show from levels of 5,000 ppb.. Three years later, this threshold has been brought down to a few ppb.!). The toxicity of the derivative OLEFINE is clear at 1.5 ppb.; it is still present at 0.75 ppb. - but with a less regular occurrence.
Dr. M.H. Pham-Delègue ( INRA Bures sur Yvette )
(November 2000): Showed that prolonged ingestion of Imidacloprid contaminated syrups cause a significant decrease in performance of Olfactory learning at levels between 6 and 12 ppb..
Dr. L. Belzunces ( INRA Avignon )
Showed that prolonged ingestion by bees of 4.5 picogramme of Imidacloprid and associated metabolites /24 hour cause the appearance of significant mortalities, 3 to 4 days after the start of the treatment, which corresponds to the time delay between nectar flow and hive population losses observed by beekeepers. According to M. Belzunces, it is very probable that the intoxication process in bees by Imidacloprid is due to the presence of toxic metabolites with a particularly noxious and "deceitful" action. The breakdown into the toxically significant metabolites originating from Imidacloprid by bees is very rapid: the half-life of the original molecule is situated between 2 and 4 hours.

3.The persistence of imidacloprid in the soil and the presence in crops that have not been treated?

The CETIOM.
Imidacloprid is present in soil for several years after the last treatment. Throughout these years, untreated sunflower plants present this residual Imidacloprid.
Dr. J.M. Bonmatin ( CNRS Orléans )
Throughout, where treatments from one or two years previous are present the concentrations of residual Imidacloprid are able to reach levels of up to 10 ppb.. Even in the case of only one "GAUCHO" treatment two years previous Imidacloprid is still detectable in the soil. He states that these results are compatible with recent published results from BAYER. Like CETIOM, he also concludes that sunflowers are capable of absorbing and expressing the presence of residual Imidacloprid from crops treated two years previously with GAUCHO. The capacity to absorb residual Imidacloprid from soils falls in the following direction: Sunflowers and Maize more than self propagating plants (volunteers), more than Rape (Canola), more than Wheat.
Sunflowers and Maize are able to absorb residual Imidacloprid to reach levels of 8 ppb..


IMPORTANT

Before the grave problem of too long soil persistence by Imidacloprid, CETIOM and BAYER were employed to verify if accumulation in soil was to be worried about. They estimated that after three years of GAUCHO treatment a stabilised threshold value was reached - this information has not been released to us. We would like to know who allows the continuation of this position: CETIOM's protocol proposal that the measure of residues in sunflower plants serve as an indicator of the of residual Imidacloprid levels in soils is certainly not ready to be validated!!

M. Bonmatin (CNRS Orléans) analysed in year N. the soils supporting a non-treated GAUCHO crop, knowing that they during the two previous years, i.e. N -1 and N -1 plus N -2 had been treated with GAUCHO. They contained on average Imidacloprid at 4.8 and 8.6 ppb. respectively, which does not invite for the exclusion of a phenomenon of accumulation, seeing that there is nearly a factor of 2 between these values. Also one is able to reasonably imagine that the soils with three years previous GAUCHO treatment (N -1, N -2 and N -3) would contain on average 10 ppb. Imidaclopride. Accepting that Imidacloprid, having very low mobility in soil and that it rests in the upper 30cm soil horizon, one may calculate that with an average charge of 10 ppb. it is equivalent to 50 grammes of Imidacloprid/hectare, and therefore by implication equivalent to a treatment of GAUCHO on sunflowers!!

Considering that:

Imidacloprid has a negative effect on individual bee behaviour, at 1.5 ppb when foraging
between 6 and 12 ppb. when relating to criteria allied with olfactory memory and recruitment
When relating to sub-chronic toxicity and daily doses of 4.5 picog.,

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE SURVIVAL OF THE HARVESTING BEES. Due to sub-lethal effects of certain metabolites of Imidacloprid to be more toxic than the original molecule
Due to Imidacloprid being available through nectar and/or pollen of crops treated with GAUCHO at a level of up to 5ppb
As the level of accumulated residual Imidacloprid from 3 previously GAUCHO treated crops (equivalent to that delivered by a sowing of GAUCHO treated sunflower seed)
That sunflowers and maize are particularly capable at absorbing residual Imidacloprid


IT IS EVIDENT THAT DURING THE FLOWERING PERIOD OF GAUCHO TREATED SUNFLOWER AND MAIZE AS WELL AS ALL CROPS WITH APICAL INTEREST CONTAMINATED BY PREVIOUS GAUCHO TREATMENTS - FORAGING BEES ARE EFFECTIVELY EXPOSED TO DOSES OF IMIDACLOPRID WHICH IN LABORATORIES HAVE REVEALED A NEGATIVE IMPACT.

In the open countryside, this negative impact is verified by observation - already at least on the sunflower honey flow:

Dr. M.E. Colin ( INRA Avignon ) :
Having analysed video documentation obtained from sunflowers growing in agricultural condition during 1998 and 1999, Dr. Colin has been able to conclude that foraging by bees on sunflowers treated or contaminated with GAUCHO, takes place with less efficiency and with a behavioural comportment very different to that compared with those foraging sunflowers growing in Organic conditions and on soils that have never received any GAUCHO treatment.
The Beekeepers:
Since 1994 for some, from 1995 or '96 for others, depending on the region, they have witnessed exploitation problems concerning the bees on the sunflower nectar flow: problems of acute hive depopulation and of aberrant behaviour patterns, being accentuated year on year. For them, there is no longer any doubt that these phenomena are linked to the crop flowering period. It requires only 3 or 4 days from the start of the sunflower flowering period to initiate the problems - this taking place at the beginning of July or 15 days later in the case of 1998. It is the same and unique itinerary every year - and only when the hives are in the areas of crops treated with GAUCHO. Those hives moved before hand to other areas for such nectar flows produced by sweet chestnut trees, lavender, pine and wild blossom escape totally the fore-mentioned phenomena. The year that GAUCHO is introduced into an area the troubles appear for the first time. The phenomena are: Destabilising for the bee colony to the point that it becomes impossible to undertake all normal activities associated with the honey flow
The regularity and levels of honey harvests from the sunflowers have continually become worse as compared to the 1995-'96 levels, with year 2000 showing only 30 to 40% of the traditional harvest levels.


The above assessment imposes that a definitive withdrawal of all uses of the molecule Imidacloprid is put into place immediately. We do not imagine that the studies undertaken by BAYER (1995-2000) - certainly judge and jury in the affair - are able to be far from the fore-mentioned contributions made by the Public Researchers of France. If by bad luck it were not the case, it would be a terrible snub for the scientific community; at least they would not have been contaminated by other considerations of another order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidaclopr ... population
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LolaB and 6 guests