Harvard Study Links Neonicotinoid Pesticide To Colony Collapse Disorder

walterbyrd (182728) writes in with news about a new study from Harvard School of Public Health that links two widely used neonicotinoids to Colony Collapse Disorder. "Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), or the widespread population loss of honeybees, may have been caused by the use of neonicotinoids, according to a new study out of Harvard University. Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides, chemically similar to nicotine. They were first developed for agricultural use in the 1980's by petroleum giant Shell. The pesticides were refined by Bayer the following decade. Two of these chemicals are now believed to be the cause of CCD, according to the new study from the School of Public Health at the university. This study replicated their own research performed in 2012."

Comments

Who would have guessed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Insect poison found to be harmful to insects. Imagine that!

Re:Who would have guessed?

[plover]

The neonicotinoids have been seen as a great advancement in insecticides because they are toxic to insects, but much less so to mammals. Compare them with chemicals like DDT, which are effective against insects, but kill the higher orders in the food chain that eat them.

The problem with them is that they are extremely effective at disrupting bees - about 1/150 of the dose needed to kill other insects is enough to confuse bees. And the products are advertised as rose and garden insecticides, which are naturally attractive to bees. It only takes a few bees worth of nectar gathering to bring down a colony.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[Anubis IV]

Indeed. Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, they merely identified that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and cause CCD symptoms, without drawing any sort of correlation between the rise of the CCD pandemic and the rise of neonicotinoids in the market, let alone demonstrating that as neonicotinoids spread to various regions, CCD spread with it.

It's one thing to say "hemlock is poisonous to humans". It's quite another to say "Socrates died from drinking hemlock". Kudos to them for identifying something that's harmful to bees and seems to cause CCD, but finding a cause for CCD is quite different from finding the cause for the CCD pandemic. I hope they can provide evidence of the latter.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[MightyMartian]

Heaven forbid we ever wean ourselves of a harmful product.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[burne]

Enough neonicotionoid progress and you might have nothing left to eat. Or take turns pollinating the plants that will become your food with a brush.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[jandersen]

Imidaclopirid is a really useful insecticide, and I am not at all thrilled that it might be completely banned. It works perfectly in greenhouses and indoors. Perhaps instead of banning it, they could increase the number of beehives by a factor of ten? Or maybe they could breed imidaclopirid-resistant bees?

Banning the substance might be an incentive for them to develop something better, which has been better tested? Historically, that is the way things have always progressed - some new substance is hailed the new panacea, it is then discovered to be too dangerous in certain respects; then follows the usual struggle with those whose greed far outweighs their concern for the harm they cause. Just look at the history of things like opium, then heroin, cocaine, strychnine, arsenic etc.

Personally, I think there are many more factors involved in CCD, and all have to do with people who cut corners to increase profit. There is little doubt that these poisons play an important role, and it would be a good idea to ban them. But we also need to address the other factors:

- Farmers that spray over open flowers and far too often, thereby loading the environment with poisons.
- Beekeepers who lug hundreds or thousands of colonies around the country on lorries, spreading diseases and parasites, as well as stressing the bees.
- Monocultures of both bees and crops.

These are all difficult problems to solve, but they are not impossible. Farmers can be educated - the modern farmer is already highly educated, so of course they can learn better practices. There are many ways to encourage local beekeeping in favour of these huge, industrial scale setups; an outright ban might be worth considering. Yes, those huge beekeepers might go out of business, but is that any worse than, say, closing a factory in Detroit? And it will open the market for the small, local beekeepers.

As for monocultures - there is probably a good middle ground between the gigantic monocultures we see, especially in the US, and the complete mixing of crops in the same field. In many countries you will find that farms have a variety of crops - relatively small fields of monocultures, but differents crops in each field, a model which still allows for mechanical harvesting and high yields, and which is better for the environment in general.

As for bees - there are 20000 known species of bees, all of which play a role in pollination, but we only keep one species. And in fact, we only keep a small subset of that one species - the subset that has been optimised for honey yield, ease of management etc.

What really gets me up in arms is this attitude of giving up without even trying - "It sounds like it migh be inconvenient, so I don't want that". We have progressed this far by solving problems and changing our habits, by being willing to face reality and overcome challenges.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[jabuzz]

Really because I watched a documentary about this on the BBC a while back. In the USA in CCD all the bees just disappear from the hives. In the U.K. they all end up dead literally just outside the hive. So clearly CCD is different between the USA and the UK, yet neonicotinoids are being blamed both sides of the Atlantic.

I would also note that there is no CCD in Australia last I heard, and although I have no direct evidence it seems unlikely that they are not using neonicotinoid based insecticides.

It is highly unlikely that CCD is down to one single cause, and while neonicotinoid based insecticides might play a part it is far from proven.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[Freultwah]

Organic farming uses natural pesticides, such as specific plants and plant infusions that insects are averse to, and those are not used to spray the crops, they are strategically planted or placed in the field. And they are completely harmless to humans. Where did you get that ‘older pesticides’ nonsense?

Re:Who would have guessed?

[sjames]

That was well explained in TFA. The insecticide leaves them much more vulnerable to parasites (if any) that might attack them.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[delt0r]

You should go visit an organic farm. It is clearly not what you think it is.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[Entrope]

Science (or at least Scientific American) disagrees with you: http://blogs.scientificamerica...

Re:Who would have guessed?

[Charliemopps]

The neonicotinoids have been seen as a great advancement in insecticides because they are toxic to insects, but much less so to mammals. Compare them with chemicals like DDT, which are effective against insects, but kill the higher orders in the food chain that eat them.

The problem with them is that they are extremely effective at disrupting bees - about 1/150 of the dose needed to kill other insects is enough to confuse bees. And the products are advertised as rose and garden insecticides, which are naturally attractive to bees. It only takes a few bees worth of nectar gathering to bring down a colony.

Which makes it interesting. CCD has been shown to be far less prevalent in Urban areas where these very plants are often found.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[Pinky's Brain]

"copper and sulfur" if that's the worst examples he can come up with of pesticides used in organic farming I'll take it.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[ndavis]

You should go visit an organic farm. It is clearly not what you think it is.

This is true although it depends on the organic farm. I can't remember the name of the documentary I watched but basically the "Organic" label has been taken over by big Agriculture with them changing the definition to fit what they need.

Saying this you can still find true Organic farms where they don't use pesticides and care about the soil's longterm health they are just harder to find.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[smoore]

they could increase the number of beehives by a factor of ten?

Clearly you are not a beekeeper. I am. There are many limiting factors in increasing the number of hives maintained. The shear amount of work and time it takes you to maintain the hives becomes unmanageable. Hiring employees isn't as easy as it is with other profession, for some reason lots of people won't take a job where they wear a sealed up thick hot suit in the blazing sun all day because its the better choice than getting stung by the insects you are working with.

You also need the physical space for the hives in a place where there is enough forage for the bees to feed on. Increasing by a factor of 10 isn't just adding 10 new hives to one location for every one already there, its finding new sites in rural areas a significant distance from the sites you already have (bees typically fly up to 3 miles). Having new sites vastly increases the amount of time it takes to maintain the hives since a lot of travel time is added in addition to the extra management. While backyard beekeepers can keep a few hives and no one notices, 10+ in a single location means you need to start looking for places with acreage isolated from the public.

On top of that the equipment has to purchased, built, painted and carted to the new areas (you can hire for this part thankfully). The existing hives have to be split in a responsible manner that leaves the parent hive strong enough to survive, getting 3-4 new hives out of 1 every year is more than is usually practical 10 is ridiculous. Doing one split in spring (going from 1 hive to 2) is common, maybe a second split in late spring or fall if the hive is strong.

Then you have to add in the winter losses. Losing 25%-30% of your hives over winter is not uncommon or too far out of the norm. The more you split the weaker the hives will be and the fewer that might make it through the winter.

Once you have planned out all that you need the money to do it. Having a few hives for a hobby is nice, having dozens if not hundreds is a business. In order to support the capital investment in equipment, workers and bees you need pollination contracts (thats what makes beekeepers money, honey is a sideline). Which means you need farmers planting crops that they need bees to pollinate. Of the top crops in America (Corn, Soybeans, Hay, Wheat, Cotton ,Sorghum, Rice) only soybeans and cotton produce the nectar to feed bees. Putting bees in typical American wheat field is putting them in a food desert, they will starve. And while bees will pollinate soybeans and cotton the farmers don't need them pollinated so aren't going to pay you to put bees there. Our monoculture farming practices, and the crops we produce limits the locations you can keep bees and have some one pay you to do so. When the monoculture crop is done flowering you have to move the bees because the monoculture farming practices means as soon as a bee friendly crop is done blooming the area is a food desert again.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[denzacar]

http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/...

Some Pesticides Permitted in Organic Gardening

By Laura Pickett Pottorff, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension horticulturist and plant pathologist

If we think organic gardening means vegetables free of any chemical pesticides, we don't have the story quite right.

Organic gardeners can use certain pesticides -- chemicals that are derived from botanical and mineral-bearing sources. These chemicals may be highly toxic, but they break down more rapidly than common chemicals, such as the Sevins, Malathions and 2,4,Ds.

The use of botanical and mineral-bearing pesticides, even though some are toxic, also can be incorporated into an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to growing crops. IPM relies on a variety of pest control means rather than on one product or method. The pesticides discussed below are appropriate to include in IPM programs.

Just as the more common chemicals are given toxicity ratings -- CAUTION, WARNING or DANGER -- so are chemicals from botanical and mineral-bearing sources. "CAUTION" means low toxicity or completely free from danger; "WARNING" means moderately toxic and "DANGER" means highly toxic. The toxicity rating for each pesticide is provided in the paragraphs below.

BOTANICAL PESTICIDES

Nicotine Sulfate

Nicotine is extracted from tobacco or related Nicotiana species and is one of the oldest botanical insecticides in use today. It's also one of the most toxic to warm-blooded animals and it's readily absorbed through the skin. (Wear gloves when applying it, follow label directions and keep pets away from application areas.) It breaks down quickly, however, so it is legally acceptable to use on organically grown crops.

Nicotine sulfate is sold as a 40 percent nicotine sulfate concentrate under trade names that include Black Leaf 40 or Tender Leaf Plant Insect spray. Nicotine kills insects by interfering with the transmitter substance between nerves and muscles. It's commonly used to control aphids, thrips, spider mites and other sucking insecticides on most vegetables, some fruits, flowering plants and ornamental shrubs and trees. Roses are sensitive to nicotine. Choose alternate pest control measures when treating insects on roses.

Nicotine sulfate has a DANGER warning.

Sabadilla

Sabadilla, another botanical insecticide, is derived from the seeds of the sabadilla lily. The active ingredient is an alkaloid known as veratrine.

Sabadilla is considered among the least toxic of botanical insecticides, but its dust can be highly irritating to the eyes and can produce sneezing if inhaled. No residue is left after application of sabadilla because it breaks down rapidly in the sunlight.

Sold under the trade names Red Devil or Natural Guard, Sabadilla is effective against caterpillars, leaf hoppers, thrips, stink bugs and squash bugs. The insecticide is labeled for use on many vegetables. It has been assigned a CAUTION rating.

Rotenone

Rotenone is a resinous compound produced by the roots of two members of the Leguminoceae family. Its common use is to control various leaf-feeding caterpillars, beetles, aphids and thrips on a wide variety of vegetables and small fruits. A slow-acting chemical, rotenone requires several days to kill most susceptible insects, but insect feeding stops shortly after exposure.

Rotenone is moderately toxic to most mammals, but is extremely toxic to fish. It's widely used to poison "trash" fish during restocking projects. It has been assigned a CAUTION rating.

Neem

Neem is a botanical pesticide derived from the neem tree, a native of India. This tree supplies at least two compounds, azadirachtin and salannin, that have insecticidal activity and other unknown compounds with fungicidal activity. The use of this compound is new in the United States, but neem has been used for more than 4,000 years for medicinal and pest

Re: Who would have guessed?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Enough neonicotionoid progress and you might have nothing left to eat. Or take turns pollinating the plants that will become your food with a brush.

Some plants -- particularly some that humans have bred for food, selecting bigger tastier food over reproduction potential -- already have impaired pollination features. Thus, pollination is already accomplished manually for some crops.

There are some ways to handle this on an industrial scale, but gardeners often do it by hand with certain plants. All it takes is a little stroll in the garden and some wrist action. Seriously. Years ago my neighbor always did this with his sweet corn plants and referred to it as "having sex with his corn."

Re:Who would have guessed?

[pr0fessor]

I live in the Midwest there are many farms and organic farms contrary to what you may read they do use pesticide and fertilizer they just don't use things like anhydrous ammonia. The anhydrous ammonia is flammable, it stinks, burns my nose, and makes my eyes water from miles away, I couldn't imagine actually handling it, but people eat corn that it's been used on.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[mcvos]

Really because I watched a documentary about this on the BBC a while back. In the USA in CCD all the bees just disappear from the hives. In the U.K. they all end up dead literally just outside the hive. So clearly CCD is different between the USA and the UK, yet neonicotinoids are being blamed both sides of the Atlantic.

Is it possible that the US and UK have slightly different species of bees? Are bees used in a different manner? In a different environment?

That the problem manifests is a different manner doesn't mean there's no problem. It probably means you haven't isolated all of the variables. CCD could easily manifest differently in different species.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[Captain Splendid]

Hi. Organic farmer here.

The term organic is meaningless, and is as much a marketing tool as anything else. Buying organic food without checking out ingredients/growing methods is as stupid as not checking the provenance of anything else.

Having said that, there are many methods of protecting your crops that do not involve complex pesticides and other "highly unfriendly to certain types of living organisms" products. Really, it all boils down to whether you're lazy, or really want to produce and eat food that isn't going to do you or your environment any extra harm.

So do a little research before you buy. There's plenty of us growing this way and we're happy to detail exactly what we do and don't do to our food. Just ask.

Re:Who would have guessed?

[sjbe]

If a farm uses harmful pesticides, it should not be called organic.

The meaning of the term organic is tightly defined and is a matter of public record. What you believe it should mean is, for better or worse, irrelevant.

If calling it that is legal in the US, then the word has become meaningless.

Quite the opposite. It means VERY specific things and those specific things have nothing to do with ill-defined notions of healthiness. If you cannot be bothered to find out that there is a lot of greenwashing going on then that is on you. There are way too many people arguing that organic = great and GM food = evil without using any actual facts in the discussion. In principle organic foods may carry certain advantages and there is some evidence to support that but the key word there is some. Just because something say's "organic" or "natural" or "healthy" on the label doesn't mean a damn thing by itself. The issues at hand just aren't that simple.

Re: Who would have guessed?

[interkin3tic]

For anyone wondering, that's not much of a hyperbole:

...one-third of the human diet comes from insect-pollinated plants, and the honeybee is responsible for 80 percent of that pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Even cattle, which feed on alfalfa, depend on bees. So if the collapse worsens, we could end up being "stuck with grains and water," said Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for USDA's bee and pollination program. "This is the biggest general threat to our food supply," Hackett said.

source

Re: Who would have guessed?

[orangesquid]

Oh, my favorite pesticide to use is ricin, a natural component of the castor bean plant! ;)

Re: Who would have guessed?

[tibit]

A modern industrial robot on a moving base with a modern industrial vision system should handle that very efficiently. Possibly more efficiently than the bees themselves.

The 111th explanation...

[pigiron]

for colony collapse. Stay tuned next week for the 112th.

Re:The 111th explanation...

[ls671]

Personally, I liked that one:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...

http://www.wptv.com/news/local...

Just search for "zombie bees" to see a bunch of links popping up.

The answer is in marketing

[jrumney]

Pesticides need to come with graphic images of deformed bee larvae covering at least 50% of the packaging. And we need to ban pesticide company sponsorship from gardening events (except lawnmower races, they can go a few more years before we ban it from there).

Re:The answer is in marketing

[93 Escort Wagon]

As a non-apiarist, I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'd be wondering why the slimy white things were on the package. I don't even know what healthy bee larvae look like, so how am I supposed to recognize deformed one?

If "the answer is in marketing", I'd strongly suggest they hire someone else to come up with a message that better communicates the point.

How about a picture of a dead bee with a cigarette hanging out of its tiny little mouth?

Doesn't that put the cat among the pigeons,

[Antony T Curtis]

I wonder how Bayer is going to keep this new study out of their court case where they're suing the EU for banning neonicotinoid pesticides.

Re:Doesn't that put the cat among the pigeons,

[fahrbot-bot]

I wonder how Bayer is going to keep this new study out of their court case where they're suing the EU for banning neonicotinoid pesticides.

Lawyers.

Do these neonicotinoid pesticides work on them too?

Re:Doesn't that put the cat among the pigeons,

[KBehemoth]

Unlikely. Although some species of lawyers are insectoid, the vast majority are reptilian.

Tonopah Rob is a Real Farmer

[teslabox]

Rob the Vegetable Farmer's vegetable farm is in Tonopah, Arizona, and is relatively close to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station. He uses companion planting and a communion with his plants and animals to farm without chemical inputs. Specific flowers around the edge of a bed will attract the insects that might otherwise be drawn to eat the plants he plants for humans. Varieties of plants are intersperced with for mutal support and defense. Netting is used to keep birds out of the lettuce. Rob's approach is the implementation of Carrots Love Tomatoes (book about companion planting).

Real Farmers don't need chemicals. Mono-croppers can't do without them. Few people could share Rob's passion for gardening, but we can all learn from his blog.

(there is an obvious retort to this comment, and I wonder how it will manifest. ;)

Re:Tonopah Rob is a Real Farmer

[ChromeAeonium]

Real Farmers don't need chemicals.

You're saying the people who produce the most food aren't real farmers? Nice. But yeah, polyculture is great and all in your garden, and intercropping systems are something worthy of more research, sure, but economically scaling it up might be a problem, and even then, it is highly unlikely to be the end of pest problems. The thing with simple solutions is that if they were really that simple everyone already be doing them.

Re:Tonopah Rob is a Real Farmer

[Pinky's Brain]

Just ban the chemicals needed for factory farming and it becomes economical ... we'll need a far greater percentage of our population working on farms though.

Re:Tonopah Rob is a Real Farmer

[AttillaTheNun]

They're farmers, but they aren't farming based on a sustainable model.

Nothing will end pest problems, but appropriate design will mitigate their impact on a system.

Chemical pesticides are less than 100 years old. We got along just fine for beforehand for millennia without them.

Here's another interesting fact - every culture that has adopted "modern" agriculture (i.e. the practice of clear-cutting forest, tilling soil and living primarily on annual (largely mono) crops) have eventually collapsed. All of them. It isn't a long-term sustainable model. Look to the lands of the middle east that were once lush edens for a prime example of how desertification is the end result. Look at the dust bowls of mid-western america as an example of how industrialization has only accelerated this process. Topsoil is the largest export of North America. The midwest prairies once had 6 feet or more of topsoil, until the clearing and tilling began. Contrast the long-term sustainable farming methods of North and South America (i.e. thousands of years), where the ratio of forested to cleared land for cultivating crops and grazing cattle was far different before western culture to what exists today.

The "simple" solutions do work (they aren't simple in any way, however, as it is the complexity of the natural system models and patterns that make them work). Every long-term sustainable culture has relied on them without fail. And I don't buy the usual retort of "try and feed the world with them". There are plenty of documented examples of permanent, sustainable agriculture (i.e. permaculture) systems that provide as much abundance and nutrition per acre. It's just a matter of appropriate system design.

I'll trot out the usual permaculture examples of proven systems and people leading by example:
Sepp Holzer and his Krameterhoff and Holzerhoff farms in Austria
Masanobu Fukuoka, who's system in Japan was rated the top 5% of rice production per acre in the country, yet also yielded an annual crop of barley on the same plot - all using natural methods.
Bill Mollison and the permaculture research institute in Tagari, Tasmania, and the PRI's he and Geoff Lawton have set up world wide, many in some of the most challenging environments in the world (i.e. the salted deserts of Australia and Jordan)
Mark Shepard and his New Forest Farm based in Wisconsin
The large-scale grazing practices based on Alan Savory's work to reverse desertification
etc

Re:this is news???

[AK Marc]

The study published last week has been in the news for 2 years? I remember seeing this, and 1000 other theories over the last 2 years, but not too much about studies supporting one over another.

Re:this is news???

[Anubis IV]

outside northa merkin land..

I wasn't aware Harvard was in Europe.

Anyway, this is a recent followup to a 2012 study conducted by the same researchers over the same topic, so, no, this has not been all over the papers for the last two years. This is a new development that helps to further demonstrate their hypothesis.

Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are used

[ArcherB]

Australia uses neonicotinoids and they have no bee collapse problems.

Yes, I know the source is a chemical company, but they have a point. Bee collapse is not a problem in Australia.

There is also this:
On the other hand, in Canada and Australia, there is no sign of Colony Collapse Disorder. ...
Despite the fact that neonicotinoids are widely used in Canada to protect canola from pests, Canadian bee populations have been largely unaffected and produce around 50 million pounds of canola honey. ...
For example, in upland areas of Switzerland where the pesticide is not used, bee colony populations are under significant pressure from the mites; and in France, declines in the bee population in mountainous areas (where neonics are uncommon) are similar to those in agricultural areas (where neonics are widely used).

Bayer says everything is OK

[Swampash]

The company behind Zyklon B wouldn't lie!

Re:Bayer says everything is OK

[Rich0]

Zyclon B was originally used as a pesticide as well, specifically to fumigate houses if I remember correctly. Only later did certain people discover its "other" use.

To be fair, almost all nerve gases and such have their origins in the pesticide space. Figuring out how to kill pests is a perfectly legitimate use of science, but unfortunately one that is almost impossible to divorce from chemical weapons research. The goal of scientists is obviously to find compounds that don't have a huge impact on people, but inevitably they'll find ones that do, and while they'll usually steer away from them, knowledge once gained is never lost.

None of this can be used to excuse companies that knowingly collaborated in genocide. However, the scientists who first discover most of these compounds usually have nothing to do with how they eventually end up being used.

Organic bees

[Uncle Robert]

In the late 90's I heard a interview with a organic bee keeper on NPR who said that organic bees do not have this problem. A few day later I was listening the the Art Bell Show when he was interviewing USDA representative. Art had a field on his website for sending comments to be read on the air so I posted a comment about the NPR interview and suggested that maybe there was a change in the pesticide/fungicide/herbicides that are being used now and perhaps that should be looked into. He actually read it to her and she became outraged and said that organic bee keepers have no control over their bees. She did not however refute the claim that organic bees do not have this problem though. So I think the solution is known they just don't want to accept it.

Re:Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are use

[ArcherB]

Different bees, no winter to contend with, different ecosystem around the bees
Did you not read the part about Canada? I believe they have a winter on occasion.

Re:It must be bad!

[dimko]

Not sure if we on same boat with captain Obvious or we are rolling with captain Trolling.

Re:Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are use

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you're getting your information but CCD is definitely a problem in Canada, at least in Ontario. My brother keeps bees there and I was just talking to him about it the other day.

Re:this is news???

[BitZtream]

Considering this is a second study of the same thing they published in 2012, yea, its been out for 2 years.

Actual nicotine is also used as a pesticide

[XNormal]

Actual nicotine is also used as a pesticide - in "organic" agriculture. I wouldn't be surprised if it has exactly the same effect if used at large scale.

Re:Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are use

[sjames]

The studies showed that the mechanism of action seems to be that the neonicotinoids render the hives more susceptible to common parasites. So if those parasites are less common somewhere, CCD will also be less common even in the presence of neonicotinoids.

That still suggests that wherever the parasites are common, the neonicotinoids should not be used.

Re:Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are use

[Anonymous Coward]

"Australia uses neonicotinoids and they have no bee collapse problems."

There are some differences in Australia:
1. The low pressure air seeders vent directly into the furrow. Airborne contaminated dust is negligible.
2. Neonics are not an approved foliar spray in Australia (ie: less use when it can be most damaging) (An alternate but related insecticide is available but has clear warnings about toxicity to bees and has clear instructions on when to avoid spraying and how to minimise chance of contact.)
3. Australia does not have Varroa mite, removing a major stress for bees.
4. Supplemental feeding is much less common, and feeding with HFCS extremely rare.
5. Hives are generally less mobile, largely because of the next point
6. Australian bee keepers make the majority of their money from honey production, pollination services are a side business (Pretty much the opposite of the US)
7. Australia has a significant population of wild European bees, Asian bees and other native pollinators.
8. While Australia has milder winters, it is still significant events for the bees in the areas where they are normally kept. However drought can also be a significant stress.

Organic farms do use pesticides

[sjbe]

The point of organic farming is NOT to use any pesticides

Organic farms frequently DO use pesticides and in fact eliminating the use of pesticides completely is extremely challenging.

Nothing wrong with organic farming methods but what people think is involved with organic farming and how it really is conducted can differ greatly. Organic means very specific things but what it doesn't mean is just as important. There are enormous loopholes in what organic means and other terms like "natural" essentially mean nothing at all.

Re:Refined Nicotine

[Sique]

I would stay away from Vitamin B3 then. This is also "refined Nicotine" (Nicotinamid resp. Nicotinamid Acid). Substances are especially poisonous to us if they are closely related to substances that are an integral part of our metabolism.

Study is consistent with the way neonics work.

[walterbyrd]

This study should come as no surprise to those who have followed the issue. In fact, I think neonics have already been banned in parts of Europe, if not all of Europe.

For those that don't know about this, what happens is: bees, sometimes by the millions, fly off from their hives, and never come back. Such behavior has been unheard of until fairly recently. This starting happening soon after the widespread use of neonics.

This would be consistent with the way neonics work. Neonics do not directly kill the insects. Rather, neonics affect the nervous system of the insects, and the insect dies because it cannot take care of itself. It has been long theorized that bees with damaged nervous systems cannot navigate back to their hives.

Re:Nice, but not everywhere neonicotinoids are use

[swillden]

Did you not read the part about Canada? I believe they have a winter on occasion.

It's more accurate to say that we have summer on occasion.

A dubious claim.