>
> >any thought on why the neonic studies with negative results are so often
> done with canola/rape?


Studies are generally done on brassicas since they produce bee-attractive
pollen and nectar.  Soy does not produce pollen, and corn doesn't produce
nectar.  And neither is consistently foraged upon by bees.  So maximum
exposure is most easily obtained by testing on oilseed rape (OSR).  It's
also the seed-treated crop most foraged upon by honey bees, so a completely
reasonable choice.

The negative results are not due to the choice of the test crop, but from
lack of adverse effects.  Field studies on corn give the same negative
results.


> >  Is the fact that this crop provides excellent nutrition/forage masking
> any effects of the neonics?


Bees may or may not get the majority of their pollen from nearby OSR
fields.  So not clear whether it masks the effects.  But it's obvious that
colonies on poor nutrition would be more adversely affected by any stressor.


> >Certainly in this country the neonics industry funded studies have nearly
> all been done with canola, despite it be the areas with corn and soy beans
> that have greatest losses attributed to neonics.


The term "industry-funded studies"  can be misleading.  Who the heck else
is going to fund them?  The "industry" generally hands those studies over
to independent testing companies.  I've spoken to the researchers of a few
of these companies (which sometimes call on me for advice or bees).  When
I've asked them whether there is any pressure to obtain favorable results,
they laugh.  They work under GLP and have zero reason to fudge results.  If
there is a problem, a company wants to know as early in the process as
possible, so that it can either drop the product before investing more
money, or fix the problem by modifying the label.

There are a number of completely independent studies that have been
performed by universities.  Their results generally match those submitted
by the registrants.

With regard to the claim that areas with corn and soy beans have greatest
losses attributed to neonics, one would suspect that those areas would
still have the greatest losses even if neonics were not used, simply due to
lack of nutrition.  Neither of those crops supplies bee-attractive
nutritious pollen.  Bees would not be expected to thrive where corn or soy
are the predominant land cover.

Adam, I'm no defender of the neonics or any other pesticide.  I just try to
keep the discussion honest and objective.

-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
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