BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:57:35 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
> A... study... showed... 60 per cent of the untreated bees had
> learned... compared with just 30 per cent of the treated bees. 

> Mallon suggests their immune systems and brains compete for 
> the same chemicals.

A very good find!  Now I have to go read that article.


Regardless if I have an infection or merely the symptoms 
of an infection, I'm not likely to absorb new material 
very quickly either.

One could say "sick bees don't learn well".  
There need be no specific impact on the by now, fabled 
"immune system", the one that is less complex than the 
immune system of a fruit fly from a simple count of the 
genetic base pairs allocated to the function.

But what new material must a bee "learn" to be able to
find its way back to the hive?  Nothing.  Bees learn
their local terrain only once - when they first orient 
to their hive location shortly after hatching out.  
Bees can re-learn the UV-pattern coordinates of their 
hive every time they are forced to re-orient due to 
relocation of the hive.  (See Bill Towne's work at
U. Kutztown's website for details.)

> Their immune systems must be alerted as never before 
> by the effects of varroa and all it transmits

But varroa has been around since the mid 1980s in 
the US, and the problems that might be due to a 
"failure to learn" are very recent.

> by random environmental pollution

But pollution was much much worse in the 1970s and 1980s 
than it is today.

> by sub-lethal doses of various agricultural chemicals 
> applied to the land, to seeds  and to growing plants

Now we are getting into areas where data is needed
to support the contention.  Given the simplicity of
the experiments cited, one assumes that it would be
easy to repeat them with each of a wide range of 
the usual suspect chemicals and pesticides.

> and by the substances secreted by some varieties of 
> GM  plants that are not found in conventional ones?

What substances would be secreted by GM plants 
that are not secreted by the conventional ones?

I'm no big fan of Monsanto myself, but I've yet to
hear anyone come up with any tangible challenge to
the EPA doctrine of "substantial equivalence", and
actual differences in plant secretions would turn 
this EPA mindset on its ear, if even a tiny difference
could be found and shown to be repeatable in
the hands of multiple lab techs in multiple labs.



 

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2