In the Conclusion and Summary section of this paper the authors state:

“As the commercial honeybee industry evolves toward a pollinator-based economy, with fewer but larger companies and greater aggregations of bees, beekeepers are learning to manage their bees in a manner similar to that of other livestock operators. Herd (or colony) health depends on an in-depth understanding of animal nutrition and disease management, including routine treatment for parasites and surveillance for new, emerging foreign-animal diseases.”

What is the purpose of this statement? It struck me as an attempt to deflect blame. i.e. - Yes there are increased colony losses but these will decrease as fewer beekeepers with more hives become better managers. And solitary, wild bees? Will they benefit from this spin?  

 The authors also conclude: 

“The life span of forager bees is very short (approximately 1 mo), so the bees that may be exposed to the insecticide in the spring and early summer are not the same bees that overwinter in the hive. Additionally, it has been shown that neonicotinoids do not accumulate over time in the environment, the colony, or the honeybees. Given these 2 attributes of neonicotinoids and bees, it is not possible for the chemicals to have latent effects that are expressed months after application.”

 This paragraph surprised me because I have read several studies that report neonicotinoids are very persistent in our environment. I guess the authors can technically conclude neonics do not accumulate because they break down over time. But the above paragraph ignores neonics persistent nature. 


These are just two examples of how I felt the authors were using debating techniques and clever wording rather than scientific facts to reach their desired conclusion.

Ted

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html