>even then, i would have to depend on someone like randy oliver to
translate it [
http://www.boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/JEIT-D-12-00001_0.pdf]
into something i might find useful in beekeeping.
Thanks for the kind words Kevin. I've been in long and friendly
correspondence with one of the authors prior to the publication of the
study. Certain aspects are intriguing (which I pointed out to the
author)--nicotine can work both as an agonist (causing opening of sodium
gates in nerves, resulting in insect death) as well as an antagonist (a
number of different effects in mammals). One would suspect that neonics
may do the same. So I was open to the possibility of immune suppression.
But I was disappointed by the paper.
The cited paper really stretches the facts in a lot of places. For
example, it cites the action of neonics on termite susceptibility to fungi,
but the authors apparently never read the original research--the neonics
simply slowed their grooming of fungus spores from their skin. There was
no immune suppression per say.
The paper in its discussion of amphibian decline does not mention that this
has happened in areas in which there are no neonics applied anywhere near.
And on and on.
The authors refer to a study that showed neonic immune suppression in
rates. In actuality, the paper states "Our results revealed that in 200
mg/kg body treated rats, there were significant decrease in mean values of
total leukocyte count and relative lymphocyte count in rats." But look at
the dosage! 200 mg/kg = 200,000 ppb dose to the entire rat body weight!
This is far more than the typical 2-4 ppb exposure in pollen or nectar, so
it is a stretch of the mind to consider it to be relevant.
The paper states that "The phenomena of insect and herbicide resistance
have locked US farmers into a pesticide treadmill." This is certainly
true, but has little to do with their hypothesis.
And sometimes the authors pulled numbers out of thin air with no citations:
"In the US in 2010, 88 million acres of maize, 77 million acres of soya and
53 million acres of wheat were treated with neonicotinoid insecticides."
A quick check of NASS statistics (
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/acrg0612.pdf), shows that the
figures for *total* acreages of those crops for the year were 91
million, 75 million, and 54 million, respectively, and not all were treated
with neonics. This sort of exaggeration is rampant in the paper.
Then they make statements like: "The consequences of this novel mode of
insecticidal action are that insects die in droves, not only at the time of
application, but also weeks later due to chronic toxicity." But they say
this with no supporting data, or even a reference!
However, the authors do accurately state that, "there is only
circumstantial evidence that the new class of insecticides is responsible
for most of the other pathogen epidemics." And actually not even that
circumstantial, since declines in wildlife have occurred far from neonic
use, negating the circumstantial link.
Kevin, as a scientist, I assume that you choked on the following words in a
"scientific" paper: "According to the Austrian Ombudsman Board,
observations from beekeepers, as well as new scientific evidence, suggest
that certain neonicotinoids have led to increased bee mortality in recent
years." The foregoing is heresay based upon heresay based upon anecdotes.
I can't imagine how it got through scientific review!
There will soon be another paper coming out that shows that honey bees
rapidly clear imidacloprid from their bodies, with no apparent lasting
effects. This process works even if they are fed spiked syrup day after
day.
If you are interested, also refer to Suchail, S, et al (2004) In vivo
distribution and metabolisation of 14C-imidacloprid in different
compartments of Apis mellifera L. Pest Manag Sci 60(11):1056-62. She fed
C14-labeled imidacloprid to honey bees and measured the amount of residual
C14 over time. It quickly disappeared from the bees even in the absence of
defecation, implying that it was broken down into CO2 and exhaled!
I'm no salesman for neonics, and agree that they are overused. However, I
hesitate to draw any conclusions from this paper, which is speculative,
rather than factual.
--
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
Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm
|
