Forbes article.

[Jon]

We were discussing correlation of neonicotinoid use with bee health issues on another thread.


Global bee populations have, indeed, struggled in recent years, but although researchers point to a number of possible causes, neonicotinoids are perhaps the least likely culprit.


In countries experiencing bee decline, Varroa is a feared and growing presence among beekeepers – even if neonicotinoids are absent. For example, in upland areas of Switzerland where neonicotinoids are not used, bee colony populations are under significant pressure from the mites; and in France, declines in the bee population in mountainous areas are similar to those on agricultural land (although neonicotinoids are commonly used in the latter but not in the former).

Conversely, where Varroa mites are not present, bee populations thrive even when neonicotinoids are heavily used. For example, Australia, which is currently Varroa-free, boasts a thriving bee population in spite of widespread use of neonicotinoids. In fact, their bees are so healthy that Australian beekeepers export queen bees and nucleus hives to countries with declining populations.

Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/03/13/bee-ing-smart-regulators-must-distinguish-activists-bad-dreams-from-actual-evidence/)

[Black Comb]

There is no OSR or maize or any other arable crop within miles of my apiaries. I'm on the coast so 180deg only of land. For a lot of miles it is just woods and grass, the latter being owned by several very old farmers who let it out and would not dream of putting their hands into their pockets to purchase fertiliser.
I have the same problems as beekeepers all over the UK. Queens not mated properly, small colonies dwindling, etc.
I do have varroa and sometimes PPB.

And may have nosema cearane but the one that died had degenerated and when the next one/two die I will check them out.

[brothermoo]

Interesting article.. the Aussie evidence says to me that beekeepers have to stop blaming one thing on colony losses and start actually being beekeepers and looking after their bees instead of hanging crystals on the landing board and keeping well away they need to take responsibility.

__________________
sent via tapatalk

[Jon]

There is another Forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/04/30/the-politics-of-bees-turns-science-on-its-head-europe-bans-neonics-while-local-beekeepers-scientists-say-action-is-precipitous/) out.
Interestingly, this is one of the few publications prepared to buck the trend with regard to an analysis of the neonic risks and the recent partial ban on some crops.

There is a quote from Randy Oliver:

“People look at me incredulously when I point out there is zero firm evidence to date that neonic seed treatments are a serious problem,” he adds. “But the notion that all honey bee problems are caused by an insidious new insecticide resonates with a distrustful public, and has firmly established itself as ‘common knowledge.’

[Black Comb]

There is quite a lot in today's Beecraft re. this.
Interesting point of view by Peter Tompkins, formerly Apiarist at Rothamstead.

[Jon]

What is beecraft saying? I don't get it.

[The Drone Ranger]

What is beecraft saying? I don't get it.

Both sides of the argument for and against
I think they are aiming for balance
In the end I think it's "nobody knows"

[madasafish]

Both sides of the argument for and against
I think they are aiming for balance
In the end I think it's "nobody knows"

NO no NO.

That is plain wrong.

Neonics are responsible for the death of every flying insect. The fact that in many places there is no natural habitat left with houses built 16 to an acre with forests cut down to provide garden decking, marshes drained and floodplains covered in concrete and tarmac is irrelevant.

You should stop repeating studies written by capitalist running dogs whose only aim is to revert to collective farms..

[Black Comb]

Jon I only receive the printed copy. Someone on here may receive the digital edition. If so they could perhaps provide a copy.
If not i can scan and mail it to you.
Essentially the man is saying that all these "studies" concluding neonics are bad are unreliable and there is just as much (if not more) anecdotal evidence that say they do no harm as there is to say they do.
In other words, lets get some proper data.