Page 1 of 1

OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 24th, 2017, 1:49 pm
by BDT123
Path to an article in Nature that is causing quite a discussion on Bee-L
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep40499
A supposedly inert surfactant for pesticide/fungicide application is suspected of causing, or at least being able to cause, mortality in bee larva when viruses are present.
Some folks hear alarm bells going off, others not so much.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 24th, 2017, 2:15 pm
by Allen Dick
Yes. There was a presentation at the NABC about that. I posted a slide on the diary, but without explanation.

Image

This is not a new topic, but research is proving what we already knew.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 24th, 2017, 3:47 pm
by BDT123
Allen, do you have any idea how prevalent the use of OSS is in Alberta Ag Biz? Is it used on Canola or Alfalfa?
The Nature article referenced Almond pollination.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: February 24th, 2017, 5:25 pm
by BDT123
I guess surfactants are used for everything from Roundup to fungicides to whatever bug killers are being sprayed. Is that about right? :?:

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: February 24th, 2017, 8:52 pm
by Countryboy
Surfactants are used to make the herbicide "stick" to the plant so it absorbs into the plant easier.

It wouldn't make sense to use a surfactant with an insecticide.

I can't speak for all fungicides, but I know when I used to help a grain farmer, we put ApronMax fungicide on soybean seeds, and we did not use a surfactant.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 7:49 am
by BadBeeKeeper
I have not read the whole paper yet, but I see some issues that jump out at me right from the start. The authors presuppose significant colony loss of bees coming off almond pollination as though almond pollination is the main factor, however, I know a fairly large keeper that does the almonds and I am not aware of him having experienced such losses after.

Obviously, my not knowing does not equate to such an event not happening, but I have known this guy since 2010 and every Spring I and a few other smaller keepers get together with him to learn and discuss the latest events and current problems with bees, and potential solutions. This guy is reasonably smart, has a boatload of common sense, and when there are issues he wants to find the *real* cause, even if that cause is his own management practices, rather than point a finger somewhere else. I credit this guy with providing me with the foundation to be able to keep bees successfully, without experiencing the kind of losses I see plastered all over BS every year. When I do what he says, bees live; when I have deviated from that, bees died.

So, I have to question the authors assumption that losses are due to some factor specific to almond pollination, rather than beekeeper management...and in particular, management of one particular known issue.

Secondly, the authors admit that they don't know what the cause is and they are just pulling stuff out of their butts:
... In this study, we demonstrate that these symptoms can be produced by...
(Italics mine)
...Multiple factors including pesticides, pathogens, parasitism, and poor nutrition have been implicated; but at this time, no single element has been successfully shown to cause colony failure...
In my book, this is 'bad science' and amounts to little more than exhibitionistic mental masturbation.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: February 25th, 2017, 10:34 am
by Countryboy
but at this time, no single element has been successfully shown to cause colony failure...
Chlorothalonil (one of, if not the most common fungicide used) has been shown to cause colony failure.

For many years, chlorothalonil was believed to be perfectly safe for honeybees. I believe it was only 2014 they realized it was affecting honeybees. (Entombed pollen contains chlorothalonil.) It also makes the bees more susceptible to nosema.

But don't look at Bravo. (tradename of chlorothalonil) Nothing to see here folks. Move on along. Everyone knows CCD is caused by neonicotinoids and GMO's and cell phone towers and corn syrup and ....

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 11th, 2018, 12:27 pm
by Countryboy
*Bump*

Seeing how Chlorothalonil just got another 2 seconds of sunlight...

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 11th, 2018, 4:57 pm
by BDT123
Country, I guess it's not just Honeys with a problem.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 195041.htm
Looks like the Bumbles have some serious issues too.
Article isn't directly related to the adjuvant, but to Chlorothalinol.
Best regards,
Brian

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 11th, 2018, 5:59 pm
by Countryboy
I'm not sure if the study was garbage, or if it was just that article that was garbage.

Building on a large data set collected by Sydney Cameron, professor of entomology at the University of Illinois, the scientists discovered what they call "landscape-scale" connections between fungicide usage, pathogen prevalence and declines of endangered United States bumblebees.

There is only one bumblebee that is endangered, the rusty patched bumblebee. So when they start talking about chlorothalonil being connected to declines of endangered bumblebees, when the study was actually looking at non-endangered bumblebees, your BS meter should peg.

I'm going to quote Allen from his diary yesterday because it bears repeating, "Those who use these sugar-coated words and phrases are hoping you will swallow their concept whole and not chew it over." Emotional words like, "endangered"...

Am I saying that chlorothalonil doesn't hurt honeybees or bumblebees? Absolutely not. What I am saying is that it is incredibly dishonest to introduce "endangered bumblebees" into a conversation to try to make people think that all bumblebees and honeybees are endangered.

Re: OSS and bee larva mortality

Posted: January 11th, 2018, 6:36 pm
by Allen Dick
Seems I read lately that species come and go more quickly than previously thought. As always we think we are more important than we are and assume that conditions that we like are ideal for "The Planet".

The Planet does not care, and many species find our ideal conditions sub-optimal.

For that matter, we only care about the surface and a very thin layer of atmosphere plus some are becoming aware of the state of the oceans. This is not "The Planet". It is our own environment we are worried about.