Interesting new bee paper on US pesticide / nosema work

[greengumbo]

Hi All,

Might interest a few of you:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...82#authcontrib

I've only skimmed it so far so not got any great insights as yet

[greengumbo]

Although I do find it a wee bit amusing that except for the Almond and Apple crops the bees were not pollinating the target species.

[gavin]

.... and the stuff on neonics vs fluvalinate?!!!!

[Jon]

Anyone who has done even the most cursory amount of reading, (peer reviewed research rather than press articles), on bee health and CCD knows that the situation is much more complex than just a problem with neonicotinoids.
Obviously neonicotinoid pesticides can be very damaging especially when there is poor control during the seed drilling of maize.
In my opinion, the most likely outcome for bees after a ban on neonicotinoids will be no significant change to general bee health.
I have long argued that some of the other pesticides are much worse for bees and this paper flags up fungicides in pollen as a serious risk as well.
The obsession with neonics is really unhealthy in my opinion and has led to a feeding frenzy in the press and an inordinate amount of research funding being directed at a single tiny piece of the puzzle.

[greengumbo]

Anyone who has done even the most cursory amount of reading, (peer reviewed research rather than press articles), on bee health and CCD knows that the situation is much more complex than just a problem with neonicotinoids.
Obviously neonicotinoid pesticides can be very damaging especially when there is poor control during the seed drilling of maize.
In my opinion, the most likely outcome for bees after a ban on neonicotinoids will be no significant change to general bee health.
I have long argued that some of the other pesticides are much worse for bees and this paper flags up fungicides in pollen as a serious risk as well.
The obsession with neonics is really unhealthy in my opinion and has led to a feeding frenzy in the press and an inordinate amount of research funding being directed at a single tiny piece of the puzzle.

Exactly right.

[Bumble]

Anyone who has done even the most cursory amount of reading, (peer reviewed research rather than press articles), on bee health and CCD knows that the situation is much more complex than just a problem with neonicotinoids.


The obsession with neonics is really unhealthy in my opinion and has led to a feeding frenzy in the press and an inordinate amount of research funding being directed at a single tiny piece of the puzzle.

There's the same obsession down here, even though the nearest a bee is likely to get to neonics is when somebody sprays their hybrid tea roses against greenfly. Same blame game, by some, when colony loss is more likely to be due to the weather, beekeeper error, nosema or acarine.

Maybe, with the neonics out of the picture, there'll be some better and more wide-ranging research?

[fatshark]

Maybe, with the neonics out of the picture, there'll be some better and more wide-ranging research?

Don't hold your breath ... I expect we'll hear a lot about neonic persistence instead.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

[Jon]

Don't hold your breath ... I expect we'll hear a lot about neonic persistence instead.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2

Probably, as a lot of people have their mind made up and are not going to change opinion as any new evidence comes in.

[chris]

The obsession with neonics is really unhealthy in my opinion and has led to ....... an inordinate amount of research funding being directed at a single tiny piece of the puzzle.

Back when the much overranting Border Bee Man was active on every forum, his main scientific source was supplied by papers from Bonmatin. During 10 years this scientist just found new ways of redoing the same old research on neonics. He wasn't even a research scientist in this field, but a specialist in finding research funding.