Second trial replicating CCD with neonicotinoids.

[Johnthefarmer]

Here is a Japanese report of an apiary-based trial on the effects over time on bee colonies, of various levels of two neonicotinoids which are routinely sprayed on Japanese rice paddies.
To crudely summarise, all colonies fed neonics died with CCD symptoms; the controls did fine.

There are problems with the quality of the translation, and it's possible that some forum members may criticise some of the trial parameters and methodology.

Nevertheless, on the back of the Harvard study, this is a clear support for the case against neonicotinoids, is it not?

See:

http://www.bijensterfte.nl/sites/def...%282012%29.pdf

[Jon]

To crudely summarise, all colonies fed neonics died with CCD symptoms; the controls did fine.

You need to get your head around the difference between ppm and ppb!

neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar are found at the ppb level, 1-5 ppb typically.

The Harvard study also fed bees pesticide at massive doses and claimed ccd when the bees were killed.

[Johnthefarmer]

You need to get your head around the difference between ppm and ppb!

neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar are found at the ppb level, 1-5 ppb typically.

The Harvard study also fed bees pesticide at massive doses and claimed ccd when the bees were killed.

Don't patronise me. (ppm/ ppb)

The levels fed were equivalents of varying dilutions (X 10, X 50, X 100) of the commercial spray levels, and ,as such, quite reasonable for this study.

I'm suprised you never mentioned this trial if you already knew about it , or did you just read it in ten minutes?

[Jon]

I read it earlier in the week. Someone posted it on biobees. The ppm/ppb thing is what renders it pointless. We all know that massive doses of pesticide are toxic.

[Johnthefarmer]

I read it earlier in the week. Someone posted it on biobees. The ppm/ppb thing is what renders it pointless. We all know that massive doses of pesticide are toxic.

So we all accept that if bees take up neonics from a sprayed crop at a hundredfold dilution of the actual spray strength, three months later the colony collapses?

[Jon]

Bees feed on pollen and nectar. You need to test at the levels found in pollen and nectar. They don't feed on spray.

[Bumble]

Nevertheless, on the back of the Harvard study, this is a clear support for the case against neonicotinoids, is it not?

I believe the Harvard Study lost credibility mainly because the high doses administered was not field realistic.

This one seems to be the same. (I have read it, a couple of time.) Bees will go for an easy meal, and giving them feeders full of syrup laced with high doses of insecticide is not the same thing as bees foraging, taking nectar and pollen from flowers and collecting water from dew, pig urine or whatever else happens to suit them.

I'll stand by what I've said before - if UK bees are dying and colonies are collapsing because of what's being put on Oil Seed Rape seeds then why are beekeepers, both hobby and commercial, still taking their colonies to fields of the stuff?

I saw, this year, one apiary with hives inches away from a barbed wire fence, which was in turn inches away from rape plants. The very experienced beekeeper didn't seem to be either a fool or a bee murderer. He was happy, his bees were happy and actually gave him a good honey crop.

[Johnthefarmer]

He was happy, his bees were happy .

But it is ,I suggest, likely that, even with its low, 1 to 6 ppb, load of neonics the osr will leave the bees weaker and less robust- more suseptible to varroa etc. and needing increased support in the winter months.

The trial in question dealt, quite justifiably, with higher concentrations because direct spraying on to foraged crops would expose bees to well over the much-quoted 6 ppb, and this scenario they demonstrate produces ccd.

[Jon]

But it is ,I suggest, likely..

Can we trouble you for evidence?

[Johnthefarmer]

Can we trouble you for evidence?

no, not tonight. it's just a kinda, you know, gut feeling...