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:
Charles Linder <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:21:35 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Several factors are known or suspected to be able to compromise the honey bee immune response. One proposed factor is poor nutrition. In this study, we measured protein content as a surrogate for evidence of poor nutrition in CCD colonies, and these results suggest that nutrition does not play a decisive factor. However, caution is needed in drawing strong inferences from these findings, as nutritional deficiencies may have much more subtle effects on bee development and immunity than can be detected with our methods.

Chronic or sub-lethal exposure to agricultural- or beekeeper-applied pesticides can weaken the honey bee immune system [48], hampering the ability of bees to fight off infection. This study found no evidence that the presence or amount of any individual pesticide occurred more frequently or abundantly in CCD-affected apiaries or colonies. In fact, the opposite was true; two products, esfenvalerate in wax, and coumaphos in wax, brood, and adult bees were found more frequently and at higher levels in control colonies than in CCD colonies.


Taken from  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006481

2009 report on CCD and colony health.

Bottom line of this report was that Pathogens,  not pesticides were the driving factors in colony health.   This of course would never mean not to do everything we can to reduce exposures.





The other thing that pops into my head on OSS,  is we should be able to "back calculate" the real exposure levels of OSS.  Most surfactants are used at rates of .25  to 1% of the total volume  so for any given active ingredient, we should be able to estimate the surfactant level.   In every case its going to be a tiny portion of the actual exposure to the active ingredient. Why would we worry about the surfactant when the active ingredients are probably always worse?


I would equate this thought process to eating at McDonalds 3 times a day and worrying about the sodium level in the soft drink......Maybe I see that wrong... 



Charles

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2