A chemical used to control pests in agricultural crops and termites in buildings has been blamed for the death of up to 10 million bees in southern New South Wales.

Key points: A bee poisoning is estimated to have cost apiarists up to $170,000, with fears it could impact horticultural producers

A bee poisoning is estimated to have cost apiarists up to $170,000, with fears it could impact horticultural producers An EPA investigation found the presence of Fipronil was likely to have contributed to the deaths

An EPA investigation found the presence of Fipronil was likely to have contributed to the deaths A commercial beekeeper says bee poisonings are becoming more common, especially for those operating in agricultural areas

In April, five apiarists, from near Griffith, lost the bees from 340 hives after they were poisoned by the pesticide Fipronil.

Ian Carter, a small-scale commercial apiarist providing pollination services to local farmers, said his business had been devastated by the loss of three quarters of his hives.

"One drop of this poison from one bee that takes it back to the hive will then kill the whole hive," Mr Carter said.

"It is a very deadly poison to bees and it devastates every colony you have, and I lost 50 colonies.

"A good healthy hive is worth about $500 and I'll have to rebuild my hives from scratch again because all I have been left with is an empty box."

Five apiarists lost up to 10 million bees in the Fipronil poisoning. ( Supplied: Ian Carter )

The mass bee death is estimated to have cost the apiarists up to $170,000 but the impact could stretch further to horticultural producers.

"It's not only a loss for the bee keepers, it's also a loss for the farmers who rely on the pollination for the year," Mr Carter said.

"They will have to get other beekeepers from other areas to come into Griffith, which will cost them more money for the season."

Source of the chemical unknown

An investigation by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) found the presence of Fipronil was likely to have contributed to the mass bee deaths.

The EPA had not been able to identify the source of the chemical.

"Every beekeeper who was involved had their hives in different areas but all in the same region, in the Yoogali and Hanwood areas near Griffith," Mr Carter said.

"They were all affected by the same chemical at the same time."

Mr Carter had moved his hives away from broadacre farms and closer to town in preparation for winter to give the bees more opportunity to forage for food in local gardens.

"Still today we have no idea what has caused it, where the bees foraged for this poison," he said.

"Where do I put my bees next year — if I have any left?"

Ian Carter says he will have to rebuild his destroyed hives from scratch. ( Supplied: Ian Carter )

Mr Carter said he had written to local state MP Helen Dalton asking for Fipronil to be banned.

"I'd like to see it banned in Australia," he said.

"This poison has been banned in the United States, it's been banned in Europe in 45 different countries and the main reason for that is that it kills bees.

"Why are we using it in Australia when there are other products available for people to use?"

The NSW EPA could not comment on how frequently bee poisoning occurred but said in the past two years about 12 per cent of reports to the Environment Line for the Riverina Far West were related to pesticides.

The Authority added that it was an offence to use pesticides in a way that harmed non-target animals, with fines of up to $120,000 for individuals and $250,000 for a corporation.

Not everyone supports a ban

Steve Cunial, who is a commercial beekeeper near Griffith and vice-president of the New South Wales Apiarists Association, said bee poisonings were becoming more common, especially for beekeepers operating in agricultural areas.

But Mr Cunial did not support a total ban on Fipronil.

"I think we need to be very careful when we call for a ban on any farm-used chemicals," Mr Cunial said.

"At the end of the day, chemicals are going to be required to contain a range of insects and we always need to be careful that if one is banned, what will they use to replace it?

"A lot of agriculture requires pollination of crops to provide the food that we eat so it's difficult to keep bees away from these danger areas, but we rely on people using chemicals.

He said everyone, not just farmers, needed to read the label and use the chemical according to the recommendation.

APVMA has been reviewing the use of Fipronil and its risks to human health and the environment for almost a decade. ( Supplied: Ian Carter )

Instead of a ban, Mr Cunial said he would like to see better education about the threat Fipronil posed to bees, and restrictions placed on its use, particularly for cotton growers.

"There's no indication that the latest incident was tied in with farming practices — it was in a more residential area — but there have been a lot of bees killed that have been nearby to cotton," he said.

"So, we'd really like to see some restrictions put in place and a reduced use of it in cotton growing.

"We don't want to be seen to be having a go at cotton growers, but it would be timely for them to review their operations and their use of this chemical.

"And I know from personal experience, talking to agronomists and cotton growers, a lot of them have voluntarily removed the use of Fipronil from their spray program."

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has been reviewing the use of Fipronil and its risks to human health and the environment since 2011.

In a statement, it said it expected to publish its proposed regulatory decision next year but until then it said the current provisions did protect bees.

"Fipronil products registered with the APVMA can be used safely if the label directions are followed," the statement said.

"These directions include not spraying in areas where bees are known to forage and notifying beekeepers to move hives before spraying occurs."

Communication is key

Cotton Australia chief executive Adam Kay wants to see better communication between beekeepers and growers. ( ABC: Dominique Schwartz )

Cotton Australia chief executive Adam Kay said Fipronil was used by cotton growers across the country, but they would rarely use it more than once a year.

"We rely on integrated pest management but sometimes pests do get on top of you and in that case, there is a certain class of pests that this is the product of choice to control it," Mr Kay said.

He added that the cotton industry had complete faith in the APVMA and would follow any guidelines or restrictions it introduced.

But he said there was an onus on beekeepers to communicate with nearby growers and take advantage of BeeConnected, a smart phone app that connected beekeepers, farmers and spray contractors.

"We've been trying very hard over the years, but beekeepers are very secretive," Mr Kay said.

"They're reticent to use the app because they don't want people to know where their hives are — they worry that competitive beekeepers will put their bees nearby and that causes concern because problems occur when people don't communicate.

"It really is about communication, and there's plenty of examples where good communication and cooperation between the farmer and the beekeeper works well and everyone's happy."

