Was: For readers of Beesource following Stromnessbees outburst

[Rosie]

If the pesticide isn't in rather high concentrations, as it was in Britain and France when the big die-offs happened, the adult bee is not really affected.

I wonder where I was when that is supposed to have happened. No-one told my bees either that they were supposed to have died and similarly the BBKA couldn't convince them that they only had 10 years left to live. They are probably the strongest they have been since the introduction of varroa.

My own view is that, although I believe in and consume organic food, the threat to bees isn't Bayer but the people who move bees around the world, spreading disease, parasites and poorly adapted behavioural traits. They also divert public money and effort into fruitless research by exaggerated scare-mongering.

I can't say that I have time to pour over every paper that is published but when Dee Lusby even admits to having CCD when she operates in a natural desert and American researchers failed to find a link between losses and pesticide use then I think we should be looking elsewhere for the problem, if indeed a problem exists at all.

Gavin, please continue exactly as you have been doing as far as the forum management is concerned, and don't be persuaded otherwise. I wouldn't object to your advancing with utmost care though when it comes to introducing GM genetics to the environment - but that's a completely different topic.

And apologies to Trog for assuming she was cursed with the y chromosome. That's worse than being an engineer.

Rosie

[Trog]

Rosie, I don't mind what chromosomes folk think I have. One of the reasons I use what I gather folk like to call 'gender-neutral' names on message boards is so that my posts are taken at face value, rather than 'he/she would say that because ...'. Oh, and I might well have been an engineer had I not hated the chemistry teacher (yes, there is a sensible explanation for that sentence)!

[Jon]

It's about imidacloprid that had recently been introduced to corn plants and was therefore for the first time present in HFCS, a popular feedstuff of commercial beekeepers in the US. This coincided with the first reported outbreak of CCD amongst commercial beekeepers.

That is just incorrect. Imidacloprid was introduced about 17-18 years ago in the US, about 1994 or 1995. Hardly recent. This does not coincide with CCD which was first reported around 2005-2006.
How do you explain the 10 year gap?

Doris. This study is hopelessly flawed. If you have even a basic level of scientific training that is obvious. It is not 'elegant' It is completely ill conceived.
Why are you trying to cherry pick stuff from it?
1. If only half of one percent of US corn is treated with Imidacloprid, how could Imidacloprid contamination of corn syrup be the cause of ccd
Think about it. Half of one percent.
2. Corn syrup is routinely tested for all sorts of residue and it does not contain Imidacloprid.
3. The low dose was increased by a factor of 200 and the high dose by 40. This is between 200-400 times field realistic at the highest level. Sorry for the claim of 400 rather than 40 from part one to part two of the study. I should have said 200-400 times field realistic. Changes nothing though as the levels used were massively above what bees encounter in the field.

There is a good review here. Please refrain from the slur that Randy Oliver is a 'shill' or somehow part of the evil empire of Bayer. Just read the review and try and assimilate some of the basic design flaws of this study.
There are some studies which cast doubt on the safety of neonicotinoids with regard to bees. This in not one of them.

[Rosie]

Rosie, I don't mind what chromosomes folk think I have. One of the reasons I use what I gather folk like to call 'gender-neutral' names on message boards is so that my posts are taken at face value, rather than 'he/she would say that because ...'. !

That's a bit like the reason I called myself "Rosie" although I was found out in the first 5 minutes by Jon and then Gavin who told the world about my moustache. I didn't mind though, unlike the time I outed Borderbeeman who called me "despicable" for extracting his real identity. The problem with the anti-insecticide lobby is the personalities it attracts. It's always a good idea to choose your friends carefully because eventually you become like them.

I once gave myself a female name on another forum (it was Nellie who unknowingly gave me the idea) and found myself receiving long and detailed explanations from an importer of bees from NZ. I am sure he would never have opened up to a male and I was able to see the rubbish behind his thinking.

All the best
Rosie (Steve)

Rosie

[Stromnessbees]

I'm horrified by what we are doing to the planet in so many ways, but these insecticides are not the evil that is often portrayed. Older insecticides were much worse. When over-used, neonics may pollute waterways, groundwater and soil, so minimal use when necessary for the protection of food production is something I support.

Gavin, can you please explain what you mean by minimal use of neonicotinoids?

In maize they are used in the seed dressing every year, by default.

This means that they end up in the plant, whether there are any pests present or not. The field where they are applied turns into a dead zone, as anything that tries to take a bite out of the plant is killed, be it a crop pest or not.

The poisoning of the soil aound the roots is another issue, especially as in these conditions pesticides take a very long time to break down and prevent healthy soil life for many years after use.

With the old fashioned pesticides the farmer had the option to use 'integrated pest management' - he would only spray when and where a certain level of infestation was reached, and there might be several years in which no pest control was needed, giving all the little critters valuable time to build up at least small populations which then feed other wildlife like birds and small mammals.


Neonicotionoid seed dressigns are not designed for 'minimal use', they are made for persistent use with all the negative side effects that come with this sort of practice.

Does this change your mind at all?

[Stromnessbees]

3. The low dose was increased by a factor of 200 and the high dose by 40. This is between 200-400 times field realistic at the highest level. Sorry for the claim of 400 rather than 40 from part one to part two of the study. I should have said 200-400 times field realistic.

Your term 'field realistic' does not apply as this is about feeding the bees.

If anything the dosing in the experiment was rather conservative, as the bees would have collected most of their food themselves and therefore diluted the effect of the imidacloprod in the feed.


Don't you think you should reassess your opinion about the study now that you have realized that you made a major mistake in judging the data?

[Stromnessbees]

You can see Dr Lu in his own words in the presentation here. The man (*) taping the presentation contributes to Bee-L and has made plain his embarassment at his club's association with the work. What you see is a man (Dr Lu of Harvard) determined to prove big Ag in the wrong, yet who understands little of bees and beekeeping (or indeed GMOs). Yet the audience are enthusiastic about it - they are uncritical, happy that 'at last' here is a scientist willing to champion their cause.

http://worcestercountybeekeepers.com...lapse-disorder

This video is very good as the scientist explains his study very well to the beekeepers, he gives the reasons why he did it and he shows the shocking outcome.


What concerns me, Gavin, is your disparaging comment about the beekeepers in the audience, especially as they contribute very well to the discussion, they look like a very decent bunch to me.


I would encourage everybody to watch this video and make up his/her own mind!

[Jon]

Don't you think you should reassess your opinion about the study now that you have realized that you made a major mistake in judging the data?

Doris I still cannot believe you think there is anything in this study which supports your case - and I have not made a 'major mistake' in judging the data.
If Imidacloprid is so toxic to bees as some people claim, what difference does it make whether the dosage comes from pollen,nectar or corn syrup fed by the beekeeper. In this study they added imidacloprid to the corn syrup to create the different levels of contamination. Corn syrup does not normally contain Imidacloprid. It is routinely tested, as are all food products.

You still haven't addressed the point that as only half one one percent of US corn is treated with Imidacloprid, how could Imidacloprid in corn syrup be the cause of CCD. How does it get in to the syrup? maybe I should bold the previous sentence.

Reading back through your last 3 or 4 posts, chunks of them are copied from garbage posted by borderbeeman in the last year or so on other bee forums. 'Dead zones' etc. Good luck with that one if you think there is anything worth copying.

If systemic pesticides work like this why are the bees which feed on oil seed rape not dead? They spend 4 weeks bringing in both pollen and nectar. A large colony can fill 4 supers with honey in this time. I see seed coating as less risky than spraying.

Would be interested to hear you thoughts on Randy Oliver's critique on Bee-L.

[gavin]

What concerns me greatly, Doris, is that you accuse me of making disparaging comments about the audience when what I said was this:

Yet the audience are enthusiastic about it - they are uncritical, happy that 'at last' here is a scientist willing to champion their cause.

I am not being disparaging, I am not blaming them, I am just stating that it is so easy to believe what you want to believe if you are in an uncritical frame of mind. With your scientific training you should be alert for that, but you seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel.

[Trog]

Given that this thread is unlikely to go anywhere except round in circles, is it time it succumbed to whatever it is that kills threads? Threadicide, perhaps? TCD?