July 15, 2013 - WSU Whatcom County Extension - Washington State

July 15, 2013 NEONICOTINOID AND BEES | PHOMOPOSIS ON BLUEBERRIES | HEAT AND LIVESTOCK

WEATHER UPDATE | UPCOMING EVENTS Whatcom

AgMonthly

Whatcom Ag Monthly

July 15, 2013

Volume 2, Issue 7

In this issue: NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES AND BEES

PHOMOPSIS DIE-BACK ON BLUEBERRIES

THE HEAT IS ON FOR LIVESTOCK

WEATHER UPDATE

UPCOMING EVENTS

http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/newsletter.html




AgMonthly

Introduction

Recently, there has

been a growing concern

over the impact of an

increasingly common on

class of pesticide known

as neonicotinoids on

honey bees and native

bee pollinators, espe-

cially in urban areas.

Many feel the decline in

honey bee populations,

known as colony col-

lapse disorder (CCD), is

directly linked to the

increased use of these

products. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data on

the urban use of these products and their impact on

the pollinators, and it would be a mistake to single

out any variable as the definitive cause of the decline

of honey bees and native pollinators.

Industry Use Neonicotinoids have become an increasingly im-

portant class of pesticide for agricultural, landscape

and residential use. There are currently more than

465 products containing neonicotnioids (often called

neonic’s) approved for use, in the State of Washing-

ton of which approximately 150 are approved for use

in the home or garden. Because of their relative

mammalian safety and efficacy they are one of the

fastest growing classes of chemicals (Jeschke and

Nauen, 2008). One of the main advantages for using

neonicotinoid products is that they work systemical-

ly within the plant, thus reducing the direct exposure

to the applicator and the environment. Ironically it

is this systemic action that makes the neonic’s a

problem for honey bees and other pollinators. The

neonicotinoid pesticide carried within the plant can

also be expressed in the nectar and pollen of the

flowers.

Uptake by Bees In laboratory experiments researchers have docu-

mented several neonicotinoid products that are tox-

ic to bees. Depending on the exposure, the effect

on the bees can be lethal or sub-lethal. The sub-

lethal effects of neonicotinoids include impaired

learning behavior, short and long term memory

loss, reduced fecundity, altered foraging behavior,

and motor activity of the bees. Researchers have

documented similar issues with other pesticides

including some products used by beekeepers to

control Varroa, a parasitic mite of the honey bee.

European Concerns The current discussion presented by a growing

number of individuals draws a direct link to the

decline of native bees and honey bees in the use of

neonicotinoids. The European Union has suspend-

ed the use of neonicotinoids for two-years as they

reassess the impact of this material. Clearly there is

justification for taking a closer look at neonicot-

nioids and placing a cautionary emphasis on their

NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES AND BEES

Timothy Lawrence, Ph.D.1, Walter S. Sheppard, Ph.D.2 1Director, Washington State University Extension—Island County 2Washington State University Department of Entomology





AgMonthly

use, but at this point there are insufficient data to

suggest that this product is a substantial contributor

to the decline of either native bees or honey bees.

The value and the benefit of neonicotinoids to agri-

culture, professional landscapers, and homeowners

as a relatively safe and effective product should be

considered when making a determination on availa-

bility and restrictions for this class of pesticides.

Lab versus Field Most of the studies on neonicotinoid toxicity to bees

have been documented in laboratory studies attempt-

ing to emulate field exposure levels to the bees. The

handful of field experiments have been conducted in

plots where the predominate source of nectar and

pollen comes from plants treated with neonico-

tinoids. Individual honey bees forage on just one

source of pollen or nectar at any one time, but the

colony as a whole will collect from a variety of

sources when available. Most bumble bees and other

native bees are generalists and will forage on a di-

verse array of nectar and pollen sources on any giv-

en trip.

Urban Concerns The suggestion that bees are more likely to be ex-

posed to neonicotinoid pesticides in urban areas

where homeowner application of the material may

be common is, at this point, undocumented. There

are virtually no data showing levels of neonicotinoid

use in urban areas being in excess of the levels

demonstrated to have either lethal or sub-lethal af-

fects on bees. Further, it is unlikely that all plants

grown in urban areas would be treated with the prod-

uct. Thus, it seems likely that urban exposures would

be far less than levels experienced by bees in agri-

cultural monocultures. Prior to enacting restrictions

on urban homeowner use of this product, it would be

prudent to collect data to quantify urban homeowner

use of neonicotinoid pesticides and pollinator expo-

sure from this source.

Decline in Honey Bee Populations

Sudden disappearance of bees has been reported by

beekeepers and researched by scientists for decades

and was often called Disappearing Disease (Wilson

and Menapace, 1979). In 2006 this phenomenon

suddenly became more widespread and has been

coined by researchers and the media as Colony

Collapse Disorder or CCD. The increase in colony

losses and corresponded to the increased use of ne-

onicotinoid pesticides (Johnson et al., 2010; Cress-

well et al., 2012). This has led many beekeepers to

speculate there is a causative relationship between

the increased use of neonicotinoids and this wide-

spread decline in bee populations (Suryanarayanan,

2013). However, to put things in their proper con-

text it is important to look at all the variables asso-

ciated with CCD.

Reports of dramatic declines in honey bee stock

have been widely reported especially in the United

States and Europe (Mullin et al., 2010), however,

FAO data revel that globally there has been a

~45% increase in managed colonies since 1960

(Aizen and Lawrence, 2009). The definitive cause

for the declines in the United States and Europe

has of yet to be fully understood, however, more

than 61 variables have been associated with CCD,

but none have been clearly identified as the defini-

tive cause of the phenomena (Evans et al., 2009).

Some of the major factors associated with the de-

cline in honey bee stocks in the United States in-

clude the Varroa mite, pesticides, pathogens, loss

of habitat, and nutritional deficiencies. One addi-

tion stress placed on honey bees is the intense man-

agement strategies needed to ensure strong colo-

nies for almond pollination in California from mid-

February through mid-March. Researchers have

ruled out individual stressors such as long distance

hauling of bees on tractor-trailer trucks (Ahn et al.,

2012). However, recent studies have placed some

additional concerns on the “feed-lot” feeding wide-

ly practiced by commercial beekeepers. Beekeep-

er’s reliance on high-fructose corn-syrup and su-

crose in these feed lot situations where tens of

thousands of bees are kept prior to their movement

into the almond orchards may significantly reduce

the bees ability to detoxify pesticides (Mao et al.,

2013). Similarly, beekeeper’s reliance on pollen

substitute may make adult bees more susceptible to

the effect of some pesticides (Jeri Wright, personal

communication).





AgMonthly

Varroa Mite Clearly the Varroa mite is playing a major role in the

decline of managed honey bee colonies in the United

States. Not only the actual impact of the mite, an ec-

toparisite that impacts adults, pupae, and larvae by

feeding on its hemolymph, but also the chemical

control measures used by beekeepers to control the

Varroa mite. Beekeepers routinely use both regis-

tered and unregistered products to control the mite.

Without treatment colonies would be dead within

two years from exposure to Varroa. Two studies

have found the highest levels of pesticides in bees

wax and pollen from commercial honey bee colonies

are products used by beekeepers in their effort to

control the mite (Wu et al., 2011; Mullin et al.,

2010). Interestingly, neonicotinoids found in bees

wax and pollen was far less common and at much

lower concentrations than the miticides or metabo-

lites of these products commonly used to control the

Varroa mite (Mullin et al., 2010). Regardless of the

levels of the product found in the colonies, sub-

lethal effects of many pesticides including some

products used for the control of the mite and neon-

icotinoids have been shown to cause memory im-

pairment of honey bees at field realistic levels.

(Williamson and Wright, 2013).

In Summary

Neonicotinoids clearly have a negative effect on

honey bees and other insect pollinators including

various important species of native bees. However, it

is unclear that at field realistic levels if they have a

detectable sub-lethal effect on bees. Exposure levels

from dust during planting of neonicotinoid treated

seed can have a devastating lethal impact, but this

mode of exposure can be avoided and more work

needs to be done on controlling levels of dust during

planting. The real concern is the chronic exposure to

neonicotinoids in nectar, pollen, and water

(guttation) picked up by bees and returned to the

hive. For now the best means of minimizing any ad-

verse effects may be in increasing awareness of the

potential through educational forums and via the

product label.

As is evident from the references listed below a

great deal of research is currently under way, in both

Europe and the Untied States looking very intently at

the effects of neonicotinoids on honey bees. Re-

searchers at the University of Minnesota, Washing-

ton State University, and Washington Department

of Agriculture are specifically looking at the issue

of neonicotinoids in urban areas. Within the next 8

to 12 months WSU Extension will produce one or

more factsheets for the general public and for the

small beekeeper on the effects of neonicotinoids on

honey bees in urban environments.

REFERENCES

Ahn, K., Xie, X., Riddle, J., Pettis, J. & Huang, Z. Y.

(2012). Effects of Long Distance Transportation on

Honey Bee Physiology. Psyche: A Journal of Ento-

mology 2012.

Aizen, M. A. & Lawrence, D. H. (2009). The Global

Stock of Domesticated Honey Bees is Growing

Slower Than Agricultural Demand for Pollination.

Current Biology 19,1-4.

Cresswell, J. E., Desneux, N. & vanEngelsdorp, D.

(2012). Dietary traces of neonicotinoid pesticides as

a cause of population declines in honey bees: an

evaluation by Hill's epidemiological criteria. Pest

management science 68(6): 819-827.

Evans, J. D., Saegerman, C., Mullin, C., Haubruge, E.,

Nguyen, B. K., Frazier, M., Frazier, J., Cox-Foster,

D., Chen, Y. & Underwood, R. (2009). Colony col-

lapse disorder: a descriptive study. PLoS One 4(8):

e6481.

Jeschke, P. & Nauen, R. (2008). Neonicotinoids—from

zero to hero in insecticide chemistry. Pest Manage-

ment Science 64(11): 1084-1098.

Johnson, R. M., Ellis, M. D., Mullin, C. A. & Frazier,

M. (2010). Pesticides and honey bee toxicity–USA.

Apidologie 41(3): 312-331.

Mao, W., Schuler, M. A. & Berenbaum, M. R. (2013).

Honey constituents up-regulate detoxification and

immunity genes in the western honey bee Apis mel-

lifera. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.

Mullin, C. A., Frazier, M., Frazier, J. L., Ashcraft, A.,

Simonds, R., vanEngelsdorp, D. & Pettis, J. S.

(2010). High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals

in North American Apiaries: Implications for Honey

Bee Health. PloS ONE 5(3).

Suryanarayanan, S. (2013). Balancing Control and

Complexity in Field Studies of Neonicotinoids and

Honey Bee Health. Insects 4(1): 153-167.

Williamson, S. M. & Wright, G. A. (2013). Exposure to

multiple cholinergic pesticides impairs olfactory





AgMonthly

learning and memory in honeybees. J Exp Biol.

Wilson, W. T. & Menapace, D. M. (1979). Disappearing

disease of honey bees: A survey of the United States.

American Bee Journal 119: 118-119.

Wu, J., Anelli, C. A. & Sheppard, W. S. (2011). Sub-

lethal Effects of Pesticide Residues in Brood Comb on

Worker Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Develoopment

and Longevity. PloS ONE 6(2): e14720.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES OF INTEREST

Blacquiere, T., Smagghe, G., van Gestel, C. A. & Mom-

maerts, V. (2012). Neonicotinoids in bees: a review on

concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Eco-

toxicology 21(4): 973-992.

Chensheng, L., WARCHOL, K. M. & CALLAHAN, R.

A. (2012). In situ replication of honey bee colony col-

lapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology 65(1): 99-106.

Cresswell, J. E. (2011). A meta-analysis of experiments

testing the effects of a neonicotinoid insecticide

(imidacloprid) on honey bees. Ecotoxicology 20(1):

149-157.

Cresswell, J. E., Robert, F. X., Florance, H. & Smirnoff,

N. (2013). Clearance of ingested neonicotinoid pesti-

cide (imidacloprid) in honey bees (Apis mellifera) and

bumble bees (Bombus terrestris). Pest Manag Sci.

Decourtye, A. & Devillers, J. (2010).Ecotoxicity of neon-

icotinoid insecticides to bees. In Insect nicotinic ace-

tylcholine receptors, 85-95: Springer.

Desneux, N., Decourtye, A. & Delpuech, J. M. (2007).

The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthro-

pods. Annu Rev Entomol 52: 81-106.

Elston, C., Thompson, H. M. & Walters, K. F. (2013).

Sub-lethal effects of thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid

pesticide, and propiconazole, a DMI fungicide, on col-

ony initiation in bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) micro-

colonies. Apidologie: 1-12.

Gels, J. A., Held, D. W. & Potter, D. A. (2002). Hazards

of insecticides to the bumble bees Bombus impatiens

(Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging on flowering white

clover in turf. J Econ Entomol 95(4): 722-728.

Gill, R. J., Ramos-Rodriguez, O. & Raine, N. E. (2012).

Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individ-

ual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491(7422):

105-108.

Girolami, V., Marzaro, M., Vivan, L., Mazzon, L.,

Giorio, C., Marton, D. & Tapparo, A. (2013). Aerial

powdering of bees inside mobile cages and the extent

of neonicotinoid cloud surrounding corn drillers. Jour-

nal of applied entomology 137(1-2): 35-44.

Girolami, V., Marzaro, M., Vivan, L., Mazzon, L., Great-

ti, M., Giorio, C., Marton, D. & Tapparo, A. (2012).

Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of

neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implica-

tion. Journal of applied entomology 136(1‐2): 17-

26.

Girolami, V., Mazzon, L., Squartini, A., Mori, N., Mar-

zaro, M., Di Bernardo, A., Greatti, M., Giorio, C. &

Tapparo, A. (2009). Translocation of neonicotinoid

insecticides from coated seeds to seedling guttation

drops: a novel way of intoxication for bees. J Econ

Entomol 102(5): 1808-1815.

Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux,

J. F., Aupinel, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S. & De-

courtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases

foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science

336(6079): 348-350.

Joachimsmeier, I., Pistorius, J., Schenke, D. & Kirch-

ner, W. (2012). Guttation and risk for honey bee col-

onies (Apis mellifera L.): Use of guttation drops by

honey bees after migration of colonies-a field study.

Julius-Kühn-Archiv (437): 76.

Kamel, A. (2010). Refined Methodology for the Deter-

mination of Neonicotinoid Pesticides and Their Me-

tabolites in Honey Bees and Bee Products by Liquid

Chromatography− Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-

MS/MS)†. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-

istry 58(10): 5926-5931.

Kindemba, V. (2009). The impact of neonicotinoid in-

secticides on bumblebees, honey bees and other non-

target invertebrates. Buglife Invertebrate Conserva-

tion Trust, UK.

Krupke, C. H., Hunt, G. J., Eitzer, B. D., Andino, G. &

Given, K. (2012). Multiple routes of pesticide expo-

sure for honey bees living near agricultural fields.

PLoS One 7(1): e29268.

Laurino, D., Porporato, M., Patetta, A. & Manino, A.

(2011). Toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to

honey bees: laboratory tests. Bull Insectol 64: 107-

113.

Laycock, I., Lenthall, K. M., Barratt, A. T. & Cresswell,

J. E. (2012). Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid

pesticide, on reproduction in worker bumble bees

(Bombus terrestris). Ecotoxicology 21(7): 1937-

1945.

Maini, S., Medrzycki, P. & Porrini, C. (2010). The puz-

zle of honey bee losses: a brief review. Bulletin of

Insectology 63(1): 153-160.

Marzaro, M., Vivan, L., Targa, A., Mazzon, L., Mori,

N., Greatti, M., Petrucco Toffolo, E., Di Bernardo,

A., Giorio, C. & Marton, D. (2011). Lethal aerial

powdering of honey bees with neonicotinoids from

fragments of maize seed coat. Bulletin of Insectology





AgMonthly

64(1): 119-126.

Mason, R. (2011). SETAC Workshop on Pesticide Risk

Assessment for Pollinators.

Matsumoto, T. (2013). Reduction in homing flights in the

honey bee Apis mellifera after a sublethal dose of ne-

onicotinoid insecticides. Bulletin of Insectology 66(1):

1-9.

Maxim, L. & Van der Sluijs, J. P. (2007). Uncertainty:

Cause or effect of stakeholders' debates?: Analysis of

a case study: The risk for honeybees of the insecticide

Gaucho®. Science of the Total Environment 376(1): 1-

17.

Mommaerts, V., Reynders, S., Boulet, J., Besard, L.,

Sterk, G. & Smagghe, G. (2010). Risk assessment for

side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with

and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicolo-

gy 19(1): 207-215.

Pistorius, J., Brobyn, T., Campbell, P., Forster, R.,

Lortsch, J.-A., Marolleau, F., Maus, C., Lückmann, J.,

Suzuki, H. & Wallner, K. (2012). Assessment of risks

to honey bees posed by guttation. Julius-Kühn-Archiv

(437): 199.

Pohorecka, K., Skubida, P., Miszczak, A., Semkiw, P.,

Sikorski, P., Zagibajło, K., Teper, D., Kołtowski, Z.,

Skubida, M. & Zdańska, D. (2012). Residues of Neon-

icotinoid Insecticides in Bee Collected Plant Materials

from Oilseed Rape Crops and their Effect on Bee Col-

onies. Journal of Apicultural Science 56(2): 115-134.

Sánchez-Bayo, F., Tennekes, H. A. & Goka, K. (2013).

Impact of Systemic Insecticides on Organisms and Eco-

systems.

Schneider, C. W., Tautz, J., Grunewald, B. & Fuchs, S.

(2012). RFID tracking of sublethal effects of two neon-

icotinoid insecticides on the foraging behavior of Apis

mellifera. PLoS One 7(1): e30023.

Smith, P. (2012). Parallel Herbicide Universe. PLoS One

7(1): e29268.

Tapparo, A., Giorio, C., Marzaro, M., Marton, D., Soldà,

L. & Girolami, V. (2011). Rapid analysis of neonico-

tinoid insecticides in guttation drops of corn seedlings

obtained from coated seeds. Journal of Environmental

Monitoring 13(6): 1564-1568.

Tapparo, A., Giorio, C., Solda, L., Bogialli, S., Marton,

D., Marzaro, M. & Girolami, V. (2013). UHPLC-DAD

method for the determination of neonicotinoid insecti-

cides in single bees and its relevance in honeybee colo-

ny loss investigations. Anal Bioanal Chem 405(2-3):

1007-1014.

Tapparo, A., Marton, D., Giorio, C., Zanella, A., Solda,

L., Marzaro, M., Vivan, L. & Girolami, V. (2012). As-

sessment of the environmental exposure of honeybees

to particulate matter containing neonicotinoid insecti-

cides coming from corn coated seeds. Environ Sci

Technol 46(5): 2592-2599.

Thompson, H. M. (2010). Risk assessment for honey

bees and pesticides—recent developments and ‘new

issues’. Pest Management Science 66(11): 1157-1162.

Tome, H. V., Martins, G. F., Lima, M. A., Campos, L.

A. & Guedes, R. N. (2012). Imidacloprid-induced

impairment of mushroom bodies and behavior of the

native stingless bee Melipona quadrifasciata anthidi-

oides. PLoS One 7(6): e38406.

Visser, A. & Blacquière, T. (2010). Survival rate of

honeybee (Apis mellifera) workers after exposure to

sublethal concentrations of imidacloprid. Netherlands

Entomological Society 21: 29.

Wada, T. Y. K. Y. N. (2012). Influence of dinotefuran

and clothianidin on a bee colony. Jpn. J. Clin. Ecol.

21(1).

Whitehorn, P. R., O'Connor, S., Wackers, F. L. & Goul-

son, D. (2012). Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bum-

ble bee colony growth and queen production. Science

336(6079): 351-352.

Wilson, W. T. & Menapace, D. M. (1979). Disappear-

ing disease of honey bees: A survey of the United

States. American Bee Journal 119: 118-119.

Yang, E., Chuang, Y., Chen, Y. & Chang, L. (2008).

Abnormal foraging behavior induced by sublethal

dosage of imidacloprid in the honey bee

(Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of economic ento-

mology 101(6): 1743-1748.

Included on the next page is a list of

research.





AgMonthly

Au

thors

/Dat

e P

esti

cid

e(s)

S

pec

ies

Set

tin

g

Ap

pli

ca-

tion

Exp

osu

re R

ange

Eff

ects

Tes

ted

Sig

nif

ican

ce

Com

men

ts

C

resw

ell

et a

l. 2

012

P

est.

Man

. S

ci.

neo

nic

s A

. m

elli

fera

n

/a

ora

l n

/a

causa

l to

dec

lin

e n

eon

ics

not

imp

lic.

in

dec

lin

e A

rev

iew

usi

ng e

pid

em.

crit

eria

E

lsto

n e

t al

20

13

A

pid

ol.

thia

., p

rop

. B

. te

rres

tris

la

b

ora

l th

ia. (1

, 10u

g/k

g)

pro

p.

(23

, 23

0 m

g/k

g)

colo

ny i

nit

iati

on

. fo

od

con

sum

p.

thia

. –

@ 1

0u

g/k

g =

no

larv

ae

pro

p. – n

o p

op

. ef

fect

Both

red

uce

d f

ood

con

-su

mp

tion

Hen

ry e

t al

2012

thia

. A

. m

elli

fera

fi

eld

ora

l 1

.34 n

g/b

ee

Hom

ing s

ucc

ess

(fora

gin

g)

Dif

fere

nce

s in

post

exp

o-

sure

hom

ing f

ailu

re b

e-

twee

n t

reat

ed a

nd

con

trol

Au

th. n

ote

th

is f

ield

rea

lis-

tic

rate

doub

les

the

pro

b.

of

fora

ger

dea

th o

n a

giv

en

day

. K

rup

ke

et a

l 201

2

var

. n

eon

ics.

an

d

fun

g.

clo.,

th

ia., m

eto-

chlo

r, a

zo.,

tri

.

A.

mel

life

ra

fiel

d/

lab

n/a

0

to 5

2 p

pb

soil

, 4 t

o

15,0

30

pp

m i

n t

alc,

0-4

ppb

in f

ield

poll

en,

0-8

8 p

pb

retu

rnin

g f

ora

ger

poll

en,

etc

n/a

S

how

ed p

oss

. ro

ute

s of

exp

osu

re f

rom

pla

nti

ng

and

pla

nt

exp

ress

ion

,

fou

nd h

igh

er l

evel

s in

d

ead

an

d d

yin

g b

ees

Ind

icat

ed p

oss

. si

de

effe

ct

of

seed

tre

atm

ents

Laycock

et

al 2

012

Imid

. B

. te

rres

tris

la

b/

nes

tbo

x

ora

l im

id.

var

. 0

to 1

25

ug/L

O

var

y d

evel

op

.,

fecu

nd

ity

Dose

-dep

end

ent

dec

lin

e in

fec

undit

y,

1u

g/L

re-

duce

d f

ecund

ity b

y 1

/3,

no e

ffec

t of

ovar

y d

ev.

exce

pt

hig

hes

t d

os.

Fec

und

ity r

edu

ctio

n a

t “e

nvir

on

men

tall

y r

eali

stic

”

dosa

ges

Mat

sum

oto

201

3 J

. In

sect

. cl

o.,

din

o., e

to.,

fen

. A

. m

elli

fera

la

b/

fiel

d

top

ical

var

. (0

.5 t

o .0

25

LD

50

) B

ehav

iora

l/

hom

ing s

ucc

ess

clo./

din

o. @

0.1

LD

50

an

d >

et

o.

@ 0

.25 L

D5

0,

fen

. =

n.s

.

2 n

eos,

1 p

yre

th.,

1 O

P

Sch

nei

der

et

al 2

012

P

los

On

e im

id., c

lo.

A.

mel

life

ra

fiel

d

ora

l im

id. -

.15 t

o 6

ng/b

ee c

lo.

- .0

5 t

o 2

ng/b

ee

fora

gin

g

Not

at “

fiel

d r

elev

ant”

d

ose

s.

imid

.>.5

ng/,

clo

. >

1.5

ng/

red

uc.

fora

gin

g a

nd

lon

ger

fl

igh

t ti

mes

Su

b-l

eth

al f

ora

gin

g e

ffec

ts

Tap

par

o e

t al

. 2

012

Var

. n

eonic

s im

id., c

lo.,

thia

.,

fip

A.

mel

life

ra

fiel

d/

lab

n/a

V

arie

d. =

pla

nte

r ex

hau

st

du

st, ca

ged

bee

s, e

tc. fo

rag-

ing b

ees

over

fie

ld/

pla

nt-

ing s

how

ed m

ean

clo

. 7

8-

1240

ng/b

ee

(con

t.)

thia

. 1

28-

302

ng/b

ee

Sim

. T

o K

rup

ke

stud

y –

h

igh e

xp

osu

re o

f b

ees

poss

ible

du

rin

g p

lanti

ng

See

d t

reat

men

t ef

fect

s.

Fip

. b

ann

ed i

n F

rance

foll

ow

ing e

vid

ence

of

bee

kil

l du

rin

g p

lan

tin

g.

Wh

iteh

orn

et

al.

2012

imid

. B

. te

rres

tris

L

ab/

fiel

d

Ora

l p

oll

en

and

su

gar

wat

er

Poll

en

6 u

g/k

g, 1

2 m

g/k

g

(lo

w a

nd

hig

h)

Su

gar

wat

er 7

ug/k

g , 1

4 u

g/

kg (

low

and

hig

h)

Gro

wth

rat

e, q

uee

n

pro

d.

Dif

f in

nu

mb

er o

f qu

een

s p

rod

uce

d

Con

trol.

= 1

3.7

, lo

w 2

.0

and

hig

h 1

.4 q

uee

ns

Au

thors

” tr

ace

level

s of

neo

nic

s ca

n h

ave

stri

ng

neg

. co

nse

qu

ence

s fo

r

qu

een

pro

du

ctio

n)

Wil

liam

son

et

al.

2013

Imid

. , co

um

A

. m

elli

fera

L

ab

Ora

l S

ucr

ose

nm

ol

l−1

, n

mol

l−1

and

μm

ol

l−1

Sh

ort

and

lon

g t

erm

m

emory

Im

idac

lop

rid

, co

um

aph

os

and

a c

om

bin

atio

n o

f th

e

two c

om

pou

nd

s im

pai

red

the

bee

sʼ a

bil

ity t

o d

iffe

r-en

tiat

e od

or

du

rin

g t

he

mem

ory

tes

t.

exp

osu

re t

o s

ub

leth

al d

ose

s si

gn

ific

antl

y i

mp

airs

fora

g-

ing a

nd

poll

inat

or

popu

la-

tion d

ecli

ne

Cre

ssw

ell

et a

l. 2

013

Imid

A

. m

elli

fera

B

. te

rres

tris

Lab

O

ral

125

‐g L

-1 i

mid

aclo

pri

d,

98 ‐

g k

g-1

F

eed

ing a

nd l

oco

-m

oti

on

imid

aclo

pri

d d

id n

ot

affe

ct t

he

beh

avio

ur

of

hon

ey b

ees

bu

t it

red

uce

d

feed

ing a

nd

loco

moto

ry a

ctiv

ity i

n

bu

mb

le b

ees.

Th

e au

thors

att

ribu

te t

he

dif

fere

nti

al b

ehav

iora

l

resi

lien

ce o

f th

e tw

o s

pe-

cies

to t

he

ob

serv

ed d

iffe

r-en

tial

in b

od

ily r

esid

ues

.





AgMonthly

In recent years, an unusual die-back symptom has

been observed in many young blueberry fields, par-

ticularly in cultivars Draper and Liberty.

These fields establish well, a few years after plant-

ing, when cropping begins, the oldest canes undergo

a slow decline. Leaves get smaller, new growth

ceases and fruit fails to size. Affected canes eventu-

ally die.

Over the

years,

fruiting

canes

continue

to col-

lapse

some-

times

resulting

in the

death of

the en-

tire

plant.

Roots

are al-

ways healthy. No obvious external symptoms are

visible on canes, but on close inspection, an internal

discolouration of the wood is seen which often ex-

tends down the cane and into the crown. In the lab,

Phomopsis can be readily isolated from these affect-

ed areas. While Phomopsis has certainly been detect-

ed before in BC blueberry fields, mostly causing dis-

tinct cankers on stems, it has not been seen to be-

have so aggressively in young plantings. Further re-

search is underway to characterize this pathogen and

to better understand its infection process and disease

cycle. It is suspected that the disease begins as un-

detected twig infections which occur after plants are

set in the field. These infections are believed to

grow internally over two or more years and eventu-

ally affect and kill the entire cane or crown.

Pending more information, the following are pre-

liminary recommendations which should help to

minimize Phomopsis infection and damage in

young blueberry fields, particularly cultivars

Draper and Liberty.

1. Monitoring. Inspect young fields for blighting

and dieback on twigs and shoot tips in late win-

ter/early spring. Several other organisms in-

cluding Botrytis and Pseudomonas can cause

similar injury. A lab test can confirm if Pho-

mopsis is present.

2. Pruning. Prune out and destroy diseased wood.

3. Frost Protection. Phomopsis damage seems to

be more severe in fields which are prone to fall

and spring frosts. Infection may be favoured by

the presence of frost-damaged tissue. Avoid

planting Draper and Liberty in frost-prone

fields or provide frost protection.

4. Nitrogen Management. Both Draper and Liber-

ty have a tendency to grow vigourously though

the fall and can be slow to become dormant.

PHOMOPSIS DIE-BACK ON BLUEBERRIES IN

BRITISH COLUMBIA Mark Sweeney and Siva Sabaratnam BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC

Phomopsis - cane die-back in Draper

Phomopsis - internal cane discolouration





AgMonthly

Avoid excessive nitrogen fertilization which can

encourage soft and late growth in the fall which,

in turn, may contribute to greater infection.

5. Fungicides. Aside from the use of copper to

manage Pseudomonas, most growers do not use

fungicides during the non-bearing years because

there is no fruit to protect. For Draper, Liberty

and other cultivars that are susceptible to Pho-

mopsis, protective fungicide sprays should be

applied during the first flush of growth in the

spring and prior to the onset of fall rains. Pris-

tine, Cabrio, Bravo and Quash are among the

effective fungicides labeled for Phomopsis con-

trol.





AgMonthly

Anyone with-

out the benefit

of shade, cool

water, air con-

ditioning or

fans during the

recent heat

wave probably

experienced

some uncom-

fortable hours.

Livestock can

also experience

significant heat

stress, which

can affect feed

intake, growth,

production, re-

production,

comfort and health. High environmental tempera-

tures can take animals out of their thermoneutral

zone—the environmental temperature range in

which animals do not have to expend energy to ei-

ther warm or cool themselves. Temperatures were

hot enough recently to take livestock out of their

comfort zones.

Unlike humans, most animals cannot sweat to any

appreciable extent to cool themselves. Some animals

only have sweat glands on their nose, which is not

much effective area to dissipate heat through evapo-

rative cooling. To a point, animals can cool them-

selves through increased respiration rates. However,

increased respiration effort eventually causes in-

creased body temperature due to increased muscular

activity; animals can become afflicted with heat ex-

haustion and unable to cool themselves, trapped in

an upward heat spiral that can be fatal.

One of the main ways animals manifest signs of heat

stress is to stop eating. Ensuring adequate feed in-

take is particularly important for lactating and

growing animals to meet their high nutritional

needs. Anything that interferes with feed intake

will affect growth rates and production.

Wise livestock managers will do whatever they can

to keep animals both comfortable and productive

during weather extremes. In hot weather, this

means providing shade and unlimited cool fresh

water for every animal. Water needs can increase

substantially during hot weather and additional wa-

tering locations may be needed. If waterers do not

automatically refill, frequent monitoring will be

required throughout the day. Stagnant ponds are

poor sources of high quality cool water on hot days

and can be a source of diseases such as mastitis, as

well.

Shade is essential for animal comfort during hot

weather. Barns aren’t necessarily more comfortable

than outdoor shaded areas, however, especially if

there is poor air quality in the barn. Animals might

THE HEAT IS ON FOR LIVESTOCK

Dr. Susan Kerr WSU NW Regional Livestock and Dairy Extension Specialist

Photo 1. Beef cattle in an inexpensive portable shade structure. Source: University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension.





AgMonthly

be most comfortable outdoors under shade trees with

a light breeze. Temporary shade can be provided by

tarps, shade cloth, wagons, lean-tos, etc.; see Photo 1

for an example. Make sure such temporary structures

are not safety hazards for livestock, especially curi-

ous goats.

Air flow can increase animal comfort significantly.

In some horse and small herd situations, fans can

keep air moving and animals feeling cooler. As an

example, the traditional British system for summer-

time equine care involves stalling horses with fans

during the day and turning them out to pasture in the

evening. Ventilation fans in barns must exchange air

at a rate in keeping with animal density to ensure the

barn does not become oppressively humid and un-

comfortable. Hot air can hold more moisture; ceiling

vents route rising hot and humid air up and out.

Observing animal behavior can help assess the de-

gree of heat stress: if animals return to eating/

grazing and activity within a few hours of the hottest

time of the day, they probably aren’t experiencing

residual heat stress they can’t dissipate. If animals

remain off feed and inactive even through the next

morning, they are seriously affected by the heat. If

animals never cease eating or being active, they

aren’t demonstrating significant heat stress. Black or

dark-colored animals may appear to be more severe-

ly affected than lighter-colored animals because they

absorb more heat and may have more trouble dissi-

pating it.

Pigs respond well to periodic wetting with sprinklers

to help them stay cool via evaporation. Thoroughly

wetting them periodically with large water drops and

allowing them to dry is more effective than misting

or continuous access to water. As the temperature

increases, increase the frequency of sprinkler epi-

sodes.

Wool is an excellent insulator and protects sheep

from both extreme hot and cold. Although shearing

is not absolutely essential for sheep to be comforta-

ble during hot weather, animals will have less work

to do if they don’t have to carry 10 extra pounds

everywhere. Annual shearing is a best practice for

wool breeds and most producers do this before lamb-

ing for cleanliness purposes; shorn ewes therefore

usually have short fleeces during the summer any-

way.

Because animals experience an increase in body

temperature after meals, feed the majority of ra-

tions in the evening as animals head into the cooler

part of the day. Animals can be encouraged to con-

sume the rest of their ration by offering frequent

small, fresh meals. This approach can work well

with nearly-finished market animals, which can be

seriously affected by heat due to their fat cover,

which increases heat retention.

The fiber and roughage portion of rations may need

to be temporarily reduced somewhat during ex-

tremely hot weather so animals continue to meet

their nutritional requirements in a more nutrient-

dense ration. Roughage causes higher increases in

body heat as a result of digestive processes; this is

an advantage in the winter, but not in hot weather.

Never reduce roughage to the point that rumen

health is affected, however, and make all ration

changes slowly and carefully. Keep an eye on the

week-long weather forecast and adjust rations for

hot weather accordingly.

Other management practices during hot weather

involve simple common sense: do not overcrowd

animals, move them slowly if at all, and work them

in the early morning if necessary. When possible,

delay any work, treatment, transportation or han-

dling until a heat wave passes.

LIVESTOCK THERMONEUTRAL ZONES

Dairy cattle 41 - 68°F

Beef cattle 59 - 77°F

Calves 50 - 68°F

Sheep 40 - 88°F*

Goats 50 - 68°F

Piglets 75 - 100°F

Weaner pigs 60 - 80°F

Grower/finisher pigs 50 - 70°F

Sows and boars 50 - 70°F

*Extremely variable, dependent on fleece





AgMonthly

Standard care principles obligate livestock owners to

provide food, water, shelter and care to their ani-

mals. Hot weather can tax managers’ abilities to

keep animals comfortable, but meeting this obliga-

tion is part of the sense of accomplishment and satis-

faction that comes from being a compassionate and

effective animal caretaker.

For more info

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/extension/beef/

current-events/heat-stress-beef-cattle

www.extension.umn.edu/swine/components/pubs/

Whitney-MinimizingHeatStress.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/mfu3cbj

http://jokko.bae.uky.edu/awqpt/plans.htm



http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/extension/beef/current-events/heat-stress-beef-cattle

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/extension/beef/current-events/heat-stress-beef-cattle

http://www.extension.umn.edu/swine/components/pubs/Whitney-MinimizingHeatStress.pdf

http://www.extension.umn.edu/swine/components/pubs/Whitney-MinimizingHeatStress.pdf

http://tinyurl.com/mfu3cbj

http://jokko.bae.uky.edu/awqpt/plans.htm



AgMonthly

WEATHER UPDATE

All information here is derived from the four weather WSU AgWeatherNet stations (http://

weather.wsu.edu/awn.php) in Whatcom County. Current weather conditions can be found at: http://

whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/currentdata.html. Station information can be found here.



http://weather.wsu.edu/awn.php

http://weather.wsu.edu/awn.php

http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/currentdata.html

http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/currentdata.html

http://bit.ly/MaM5lj



AgMonthly

July OSU Blueberry Field Day Wednesday July 17th

1:00 pm—5:00 pm

OSU NWREC

Whatcom Dairy Speaker Series Thursday July 18th

12:00 pm - 1:30 pm

Ten Mile Grange How to Identify and Fix Engineering

Issues on Farm

Chris will talk about identifying issues with

lagoons, filter strips, silage bunkers, slabs,

and other areas on farm. Knowing the po-

tential issues that may be on your own farm

can help you prevent them before they be-

come a serious issue. Chris will also give

guidance on how to fix problem areas and

keep up with proper operation and

maintenance to keep your farm running

smoothly.

The Art of Queen Rearing Friday July 19th

9:00 am - 4:30 pm

WSU Mt. Vernon This workshops will provide an

understanding of what it takes to rear high

quality queens. Basic biology and methods

of queen rearing will be presented. The

workshops emphasize hands on instruction

in queen rearing methods, with some

lectures and demonstrations. http://

entomology.wsu.edu/apis/

Northwest Raspberry

Festival July 19th - 20th

Lynden WA Celebrate the largest harvest of raspberries

in North America here in Lynden, Wash-

ington! Mid-July is the peak time to get

your share of Lynden's bountiful crop of

red raspberries (approximately 2/3 of the

nation's total production) while enjoying

the summer sunshine and a variety of fami-

ly-friendly activities at our annual down-

town celebration, attracting nearly 20,000

visitors last year! Organic Seed & Breeding Field

School

Thursday August 8th

9:00 am - 5:30 pm

WSU Mt. Vernon Organic plant breeding, seed production

and research are critical to the success of

healthy, local food systems. Much of this

knowledge is held by very large private

companies, who tend not to pay any atten-

tion to the needs of smaller farmers, organ-

ic growers or niche markets. But the public

plant breeders and independent seed com-

panies that remain have banded together to

help train a new generation of breeders and

farmers so that together we can identify and

develop the genetics we need for the

emerging new food system.

Organic No-Till Field Day Monday August 12

10:00 am - 1:00 pm

WSU Puyallup Come visit reduced tillage plots at WSU

Puyallup along with researchers. More

information to follow.

Upcoming Events

WSU Extension programs and

employment are available to

all without discrimination.

Evidence of noncompliance

may be reported through your

local WSU Extension office.

Whatcom

Ag Monthly

Chris Benedict

Editor

WSU Whatcom County

Extension

(360) 676-6736, ext. 21

Colleen Burrows

Assistant Editor

WSU Whatcom County

Extension

(360) 676-6736, ext. 22

Jessica Shaw

Assistant Editor

WSU Whatcom County

Extension

(360) 676-6736, ext. 23

Vincent Alvarez

Designer

WSU Whatcom County

Extension

(360) 676-6736

Cover Image:

Raspberry harvester in action.

J. Shaw

Web site:

whatcom.wsu.edu/ag



http://www.berriesnw.com/sfu/2013/sfudocs13/blueberry_field_day_2013.pdf

http://www.whatcomcd.org/dairy-speaker-series

http://wasba.org/event/1075/

http://entomology.wsu.edu/apis/

http://entomology.wsu.edu/apis/

http://business.lynden.org/events/details/northwest-raspberry-festival-2011-584

http://business.lynden.org/events/details/northwest-raspberry-festival-2011-584

http://www.highmowingseeds.com/pdfs/2013_Organic_Seed_and_Breeding_Field_School.pdf

http://www.highmowingseeds.com/pdfs/2013_Organic_Seed_and_Breeding_Field_School.pdf

whatcom.wsu.edu/ag

July 15, 2013 - WSU Whatcom County Extension - Washington State

Documents

Transcript of July 15, 2013 - WSU Whatcom County Extension - Washington State