>Finnish farmers are pushing

> for a small pilot test to see if we can find residues from rapeseed.


That has been done all over the world--haven't residues been measured
already in Finland?



> >As I am in the group advicing mostly about the bees I have asked if we
> could
> do my favorite. Feed the bees with neonics and see what happens.
>

Ari, this is an excellent idea.

>
>
>
> >We take 2 standard hives (from a standardized group used in other part of
> the
> study, I know 2 is really too little, but that?s all that we will get
> money for
>

Ari, due to natural variability in colonies, an n of 2, as you know, is far
too small from which to draw any sort of conclusion.


> >We place the bees so that they are in same area than other test colonies,
> but
> more than 3 km from rapeseed or orchards, so no neonics from nature.
>

It would be far better to place the control group on untreated rapeseed, in
order to minimize the variable of the sorts of pollen and nectar that the
colonies are foraging upon.

>
> >When rapeseed starts to bloom, we start feeding the bees with neonic
> spiked
> sugar solution. Amount 1,5 times higher than  the highest possible amount
> in
> rapeseed nectar stated in ESFA paper.
>

I'm not clear why you are interested in setting up an artificial situation.
 It would seem to me that as a beekeeper you would be interested in seeing
what happens in a real-life situation, in which the colonies are foraging
on a treated crop.  They would already be getting dosed from both the
pollen and nectar from the treated rapeseed crop.

Ari, in any experimental design, I suggest that you first clearly state the
question that you hope to answer, and then write that question on the wall.
 Any part of the experiment that does not directly apply to answering that
question should be eliminated.  So I must ask, why are you asking whether
if colonies are fed supplemental syrup containing a neonic at a
concentration not found in the field, in addition to the neonic consumed in
rapeseed pollen and nectar, they show obvious signs of impairment?

Now I understand that you may be wishing to test an extreme case (at 1.5x
normal field rate of exposure).  If that is the question, then that
question should be in the title.  In that case, why bother placing the test
hives on rapeseed?  Better to simply run all colonies in the same yard to
eliminate location/forage effect, feeding every colony the same amount of
sugar syrup, spiked for the test group.  No open feeding.

>
> >Amount of bees and brood is studied the same way as in the other study
> units.
> Amount of different stages of brood, amount of adult bees.


I feel that the invasive measurement of brood is absolutely a waste of
time.  What matters is the final outcome, which is colony population (since
if that brood survives, it will eventually become adult bees).  The
measurement of colony population also reflects sublethal effects and adult
longevity.  Save your time and effort and simply count the number of
interspaces between the combs filled with bees--quick and noninvasive.

 >Main interest is to see if we can see any effect on the colonies.

I would also take colony weights--weight gain is a result of the final
calculus of all aspects of colony health.

>
> >One thing what I have been wondering is that is 1,5 times max good level
> to
> prove what can happen when more than max level is fed?
>

A scientific experiment never "proves" anything.  All that one can do is to
disprove the null hypothesis.  In this case the null hypothesis would be
that the feeding of an elevated (1.5x) dose of neonic had no measurable
effect upon colony population or performance.

-- 
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