Christina
The issue is that Dr Lu self-proclaims in both Papers and the associated media coverage that he has found the cause of CCD. Given his methods, I doubt that he could manage to pass our beginning Beekeeping class, much less recognize CCD. Anyone conducting toxicology studies should at the very least recognize the signs of poisoning. All he manages to do is to confirm that mega doses of an insecticide kill bees.
I don’t think either Randy or I would argue that bee loss from poisoning, bee loss from depopulated hives, or bee loss from mites or other bee pests or diseases isn’t of concern - but I personally will argue that bee loss from any source, including falling off trucks or even starvation, is a part of the total problem. I doubt that it makes much difference to the affected colony.
That said, I will argue that even in the worst confirmed pesticide poisoning cases I’ve rarely seen as high a percentage of colonies within any apiary or stockpile yard with severe loss as I’ve seen in operations with 80-90+% loss from depopulation or CCD - whichever you choose to call it. And I will also disagree with the report that there hasn’t been any CCD in past three years.
But then again, I disagree with the relatively recent proclamation that CCD colonies don’t have any Nosema problems. I have publicly stated that it appears that the way some researchers are going to resolve the CCD problem is to name it out of existence. It’s not CCD, it’s depopulated hives. It’s not hives that have Nosema, etc.
It’s probably all part of what another researcher, whom I respect, but who doesn’t want to be quoted said to me, CCD isn’t Colony Collapse Disorder, it’s Cash Cow Disease. Dr. Lu certainly seems to fit this description,
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Christina Wahl
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 10:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Hi Randy,
I wonder why collapse of colonies is what you consider to be the significant neonic effect? You mentioned this in context of the van der Sluij review. "This makes me wonder why no scientist to date has been able to demonstrate colony failure of any sort due to chronic feeding of field-realistic doses of neonics. "
What about colony productivity? Or are you including low productivity in your definition of "colony failure of any sort"?
I'm not sure "colony collapse" as a result of toxins means much....most aren't around long enough (with the same queen) to evaluate that way, are they? The type of collapse where the colony is dead in the box is more an acute phenomenon, or at least a poor management one because a failing colony would have been "righted" by the beekeeper long before it was dead (except here in the North of course where we can't do anything during the cold season).
Also, what is the right way to look at "field dose" in your view? If foragers bring back amount X of some chem treatment, is that what you consider to be the "field relevant" amount? Or are you calling the residues found in the hive to be the "field relevant" amount?
Christina
***********************************************
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
***********************************************
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
|
