At the risk of inciting some people on this list, I would like to point out a few things:

First:
1.      Any poison that is intended to kill “insects” will probably kill bees,
2.      The trick here is to apply said poisons in a way that minimizes exposure to bees.

Second:
For years, we scientists in the field of mammalian physiology have been subjected to funding pressure that can be summed up as follows:

1.      Mice are great models for studies in physiology and genetics.  All other model animal systems may be quirky and/or interesting, but since we have limited research dollars, we have to choose a model mammalian system, and mouse research is directly relevant to human medicine. So, we will all now work on mice.
2.      All studies that show effects on Mice of (Insert Your Factor Here) are applicable to All Mammals.
3.      Anyone doing genetic analysis on mice will be preferentially supported when they submit grants, because the field of molecular genetics provides methodologies that will help us solve/understand all the problems of Man, and Mice are just like Men.  We have invested millions of dollars in Mouse Facilities at Prestigious Institutions.  We can’t afford multiple alternative model animal facilities.  Learn to deal with this and re-write your grants, please.

There are some weaknesses in the above arguments.  For instance…to start with the first set of observations…we cannot ensure that insecticides will always be applied in ways that aren’t going to injure bees.  Maybe in some operations and some locations everything works “by the book”, but due to limited oversight… in other operations, bees come into direct contact with stuff that will kill them because the applicators did not work “by the book”.   This could include violations by multitudes of home gardeners who aren’t even thinking about bees (and maybe they don’t even care if the bees die…damn them!).  Is this the beekeeper’s fault?  Is this “PPB”?  I say, no.

Second, we have to note that mice are, in fact, NOT great models for “all mammals” or even just "humans".  I can offer you a *huge* list of exceptions on this point, but this is a list about bees.

Let’s assume for the sake of ARGUMENT (and I bet we get some) that ONE insect as a “model” for all the others will be less than ideal.  In contrast to mammals with about 5,600 species (according to one source, but numbers go up every year), the insects alone are represented by more than 1.3 MILLION species (and many, many remain uncatalogued).

So ants and moths might be able to eat a lot of nasty pesticide and still survive.   Perhaps their LD50 for neonics (or other poison) is very different than that of the honeybee.   Well, we aren’t actually measuring moth and ant PRODUCTIVITY, are we?  So let’s say they “just survive”.  The bees, by contrast, are differently susceptible.  They may live or not, and they might make honey, or not.  They may thrive, or not.  They may be more susceptible to disease and mites after exposure to insecticides…or not.  The bottom line is WE REALLY DON’T KNOW!!!!

I am happy for studies by Suchail, Spivak, Frazier, and others that help us get closer to an understanding of the physiology of the HONEYBEE.

And by the way, I’ve been doing some microanatomy (i.e. histology) of the honeybee ventriculus and proventriculus, as a personal hobby and interest...I have a lab and I'm having fun with this.  Does anyone know of a study with histological pictures (not drawings from the 30’s) of these structures?  How about the queen vs. drone vs. worker gut?!?  Please do post and let me know!!

Thanks.   Please, folks, keep in mind that no offense to anyone is intended by this post (my disclaimer).

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