Hi Jeremy,

You asked "Where did you find the 12 microliter a
day figure?  Was it the same for the controls?, that would be telling.  Any
chance DMSO affects them itself, rather than just increasing uptake?  The
little description I got in the paper of the trials mentions that the
controls were fed straight sugar syrup, Am I wrong to assume the controls
were treated the same? knocked out, starved, then fed etc."

I got the figure of 12µl/day from the M&Ms, the last paragraph...talking about the chronic studies.  For the acute one they gave each bee 10 µl and then allowed them straight 1:1 sucrose syrup as desired (ad libitum).

They did put the DMSO in the control.  The control mortalities in all their studies was 15%, which they claim is within guidelines in the EU for "normal".  The controls were treated exactly the same as the trials except there were no toxins in their syrups.

And Randy, I am NOT taking sides here and I don't "have my mind made up".  That is why I take the time to read these papers carefully.

Don't we all agree that neonics kill bees?  And we also agree that honeybee colonies are surviving just the same.  What I want to understand is why some beekeepers are saying their bees are hard hit or not thriving on certain crops/locations, while others say life is good with neonics and we usually hear about the great situation on Canadian canola.  Since I understand the mechanism of action, more-or-less, I am trying to figure out what could account for all these observations.

I was very interested in the discussion in one of these Suchail papers and shared what they said here just the other day, namely: There is evidence that bee colonies have different metabolisms and can rid themselves of nicotinoids and their metabolites at different rates.  Note that they say COLONIES not "bees".  It makes me think about the microbiome of the hive, which has been discussed here recently (bees eating bees, probiotics in beehives, etc).

However, it is also clear that all of the IMI metabolites that Suchail et al studied behaved just the same as the original IMI in that mortality began for each after 72 hours.  It turns out that these metabolites are also AChR agonists, and some of them are much more powerful than the original compound (IMI)...these are the ones still found in bee tissues at 72 hours.  You may recall the lengthy discussion we had about how irreversible binding to AChR receptors by strong agonists stresses neurons.  And before you get upset again that I don't give the nod to "rapid and complete breakdown to CO2", please note that *none* (0) of the papers you sent me to look at said that.  What they say is that IMI rapidly breaks down.  The breakdown products...the metabolites...do NOT.  They linger in the system for a long time, especially in the AChR rich tissues of thorax and head.  This was repeated over and over.  OK?  It means the neuroactivity LINGERS.

I chatted with my husband about this.  He is a neurophysiologist too.  We both think this delayed mortality could be the result of stressed neurons failing after days of trying to repair the membrane leaks....they are under excess load and they fail sooner than they should, so the bee's life is shortened.  But of course, this is just an educated guess.

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