I think Randy Oliver read it more carefully than that.
This is very old news but neonicotinoid residue in pollen and nectar has been reported in many studies to generally be from 1-5 ppb.
The Harvard study first of all looked at levels from 0.1 to 10 ppb and no effect was noted.
In the second part of the study it switched to levels of 20-400 ppb
there was no explanation for this but the speculation is that when no effects were noted in the field realistic range they upped the dose until an effect was noted
The bees then died.
This is not ccd.
This is what happens when insects are exposed to high levels of insecticide
This paper was discussed to death last year here and every other bee forum on the internet.
Randy's review is on the front page here
>I'm re-reviewing the Harvard study now, and comparing it with your accusations that they used "massive" doses (as this is not what I saw from a cursory glance of the study at all) and will get back to you on that. I'm also reviewing Randy Oliver's rebuttal at the same time and will address it if I disagree with his rebuttal.
thanks javin, i look forward to what you have to say about that.
just curious, and not looking for anything too specific, but can you give us a general idea of what your scientific background is?
journaling the growth of a treatment free apiary started in 2010. 20+/- hives
"When the investigators failed to prove their case after a month of feeding spiked syrup—they changed the protocol, and ramped up the doses of insecticide in the syrup to sky high and overtly toxic levels, and then made a series of compounding mistakes, notably by not performing the sort of necessary parasite management required for colonies to survive the winter. And then, even though the symptoms of the colonies when they died did not match the symptoms of CCD, yet the Harvard press agent claimed that they did!"
I find nothing in the study to indicate that there was any change in the dosing protocol during the timeframe of the study. The lack of parasite management means zilch in this case since the people doing the study DID actually have a control group that also did not have parasite management. The study can be found here: http://stream.loe.org/images/120406/...al%20proof.pdf
The argument that they "dumped a lot of pesticide" on the bees is asinine at the best, and perhaps someone should "do some basic research" before making that accusation.
They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.
Then there's the dosage levels. In 2008, a study was done to find out what concentration of imadocloprid (the neonicotinoid in question) was actually found in the guttation of corn to be around 47mg/L. If my admittedly shabby math is correct, this works out to very (very) roughly to 470,000 micrograms per kilogram. In other words, over a thousand times MORE pesticide could be found in corn's nectar than was actually used in this study.
Then Randy Oliver states that no CCD was observed. Except that it was. CCD is the sudden absconding of the vast majority of live honey bees without bodies of the dead to be found, leaving the queen and a handful of very young bees behind. Now, if we want to change the definition of what we're calling CCD, then by all means let's do that before saying that they didn't experience any CCD in the study, since this was precisely the result they got. (And for those that don't like to read, they have pictures.)
The only problem I have with the Harvard study is the incredibly small sample size that was tested, but even the scientists themselves state that. The entire point of these studies is to give us a basis for further investigation. This study shows a clear correlation between CCD and neonicotinoids. It does not necessarily show causality (correlation does not prove causation) but it most certainly is the ONLY study I've found to date that has given it an honest and unbiased try. I can't say the same for Randy Oliver's rebuttal if I'm understanding both his rebuttal and the study itself correctly. But again, don't take my word for it. Read the study yourself. That's why I've posted the links.
Go read it again then, half way down the paragraph titled 'materials and methods'They used a range of levels of neonicitinoids from 20 MICRO-grams(ug) per kilogram concentrations up to 400ug/kg. The did not, as Randy Oliver accuses, change the protocol halfway through the study. Read the study yourself.
The initial part looked at 0.1 to 10ug/kg
The 20-400 number also seems to be a bit of confusion for you. This is 20ug /kg to 400 ug/kg. The concentration used in the HFCS. These numbers are still below the 5 ppm mark.
No it is 1-5 ppb.
500ppb is way over the LD50
that is why the harvard study is such dross
This stuff is really basic.
You are confused by a factor of 1000
The point of this study, in their own words, was not to prove that the pesticide kills bugs. We know it does. Duh. It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.
In nature bees are typically exposed to values of 1-5ppb in pollen and nectar.
That is why an experiment which exposed them to 20-400 ppb is pointless.
It is way over field realistic levels.
Do your research about levels in pollen and nectar.
Google papers by Bonmatin for example.
These are massive doses and clearly they will kill bees.It was to prove that SUBLETHAL dosages over time could cause the pattern we call CCD. Which it did. Clearly.
Check your LD50s
I don't know why you have started to argue this stuff without checking the most basic facts.
This is where they got their dosage levels for the study. I'm entirely unsure as to where you got yours.
Are agrochemicals present in High Fructose CornHFCS samples from Tate and Lyle, Archer Daniels Midland,
Roquette and Mann Lake were sent to the Carl Hayden Bee Research
Center in Tucson, AZ, USA in 2008. These companies are among the largest commercial suppliers of HFCS to beekeepers. The HFCS was used in a study to investigate the relationship between temperature and HMF formation (LeBlanc et al., 2009). A 50ml sample of HFCS from each supplier was shipped on ice to the USDA-AMS-National Science Lab in (NSL) Gastonia, NC for pesticide analysis. The HFCS samples were extracted for analysis of agrochemicals using an official pesticide extraction method (AOAC 2007.01, also known as the QuEChERS method), and analyzed by gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry detection (GC/MS, GC/MS/MS, LC/MS/MS). Samples were analyzed for the presence of 174 different agrochemicals including 17 neonicotinoids and their metabolites (Table 1). Quantification was performed using external calibration standards prepared from certified standard reference
material. The National Science Laboratory is ISO 17025 accredited to perform pesticide residue analysis.
There were no pesticides detected in any of the HFCS samples.
Syrup fed to honey bees (Apis mellifera L.)?
Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman1*, Diana Sammataro1 and Roger Simonds2
1Carl Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS, 2000 East Allen Road, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
2National Science Laboratory, USDA-AMS, 801 Summit Crossing Pl. Ste. B, Gastonia, NC 28054, USA.
Lets go back to basics here.
The harvard study fed HFCS to bees with added Imidacloprid.
This is in spite of the fact that corn in the US is treated with Clothianidin rather than Imidacloprid.
The link above shows that HFCS does not contain pesticide residue anyway, either Imidacloprid or Clothianidin.
leaving aside Corn syrup for the moment, there are various routes of exposure to pesticides, the main ones are via pollen, nectar or in the case of corn, planter dust during seed drilling.
The Krupke et al paper discusses this.
The biggest risk to bees is planter dust as this is highly toxic.
Last edited by jonathan; 03-23-2013 at 03:21 PM. Reason: clarity
Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
Anybody want to discuss "Beekeepers suing EPA"? No? Then maybe the dualing Research Papers folk aught to get their own Thread.
Squeak Creek Apiaries
Mark, they should make you a moderator, . . . but then, a lot of stuff would get deleted ! ha ha
Ian Steppler >> Canadian Beekeeper's Blog
Guilty. Short lived. Ha,ha.
Squeak Creek Apiaries
But we're still friends!
At least that's what we tell the kids.
Squeak Creek Apiaries