Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

CCD Research

53K views 244 replies 30 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
#120 ·
Hold on a second.

In his presentation he trashed some other work...work that he didn't understand...not hard work to understand.

He critiqued the phorid fly study directly...stating that the authors claimed that the phorid fly was the cause of CCD (they didn't). He claimed that we didn't know who would fund such a study (the published study lists the funding sources).

I am not making fun of Dr. Lu's accent or speaking style....my Chinese is limited to counting to two...in Japanese :) ...just trying to accurately transcribe what he said:

Dr. Lu:
“They actually published the paper...the paper got
published”. “Never really able to demonstrate that worm
were able to trigger CCD...so why did he make a
publication like that
(audience member shouts out, "Grant Money"
Dr. Lu:
yeah, didn’t know who actually
supported that study, right?
...from the study itself:
Funding
:
United States National Science Foundation grant DEB
-
1025922 supported BB. JD was supported by the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute. CR was supported by a
Genetech
Graduate
Student Fellowship and Project
Apis
m. JH and CS were supported
by a California State University Program for Education and
Research in Biotechnology Faculty
-
Student Seed Research grant.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
 
#122 ·
...and neither of those articles make any claims about imidacloprid in HFCS. I have already posted many problems with the LU study....if you want to understand the Lu study, you have to look at it carefully.

deknow
 
#123 ·
This article is a very nice summary of the neonics controversy and how corporate, political, and academic power structures are shaping the debate: "Be(e)coming experts: the controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder."

"We began with the observation that commercial beekeepers’ knowledge claims are subordinated to those of academic and agro-industry toxicologists in the CCD controversy."

"Honey bee scientists’ practices, however, are characterized by a causally driven, single-factorial epistemic form that emphasizes rapid, lethal effects of insecticides on honey bees, and a preference for false-negative (over false-positive) conclusions. We traced the prevalence of this approach to the primacy of the agricultural research organizations such as the USDA and agroeconomic contexts within which early state entomologists and honey bee scientists practiced. Academic toxicologists’ preference for this agro-entomological approach reflects their career stakes and interests in enhancing their cultural capital and achieving intellectual distinction. The EPA’s regulators have come to adopt dominant academic forms, perspectives, and norms, such as false-negative standards, in judging whether a pesticide poses environmental harm to honey bees. This reflects a historical shift in regulatory assessments of prospective harm from being broadly precautionary to nonprecautionary, which was precipitated by a highly fragmented and adversarial political context where chemical policymaking became a key ground for battles between pro-regulatory and deregulatory forces.

In sum, the primacy of toxicologists’ knowledge in the CCD controversy is not evidence of its inherent superiority. Rather, the dominance of toxicologists’ epistemic form reflects a particular history. In turn, the agrochemical industry has been able to draw on the epistemic form now institutionalized in regulatory policy and largely taken for granted in order to advance their interests and perspectives over and above those of commercial beekeepers in the CCD controversy. In this context, commercial beekeepers’ variety of expertise is characterized as merely ‘anecdotal’. The EPA, Bayer, and many academic scientists make it clear that beekeepers cannot make credible knowledge on their own and thus need to work with certified institutional environmental toxicologists and honey bee researchers, who are the experts. Doing so, however, means that the knowledge gets constructed in terms of the established agro-entomological form of expertise, and beekeepers’ influence is limited. At the same time, at a practical level, the governing standards and high expenditure required to comply with the EPA’s GLP means that investigations undertaken by beekeepers will tend to fail to meet those standards (Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2011).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...xMDMyOTMwMzYyMjYwMDgBRGNHZmtPZlJmMklKATQBAXYy
 
#125 ·
Then, there is this article: "Field Research on Bees Raises Concern About Low-Dose Pesticides."

"Foraging problems are exactly what Axel
Decourtye of the Association for Techni-
cal Coordination in Agriculture in Avignon,
France, and his colleagues found in a fi eld
study of honey bees. Decourtye’s team glued
tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653
honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a
sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
to the hive, depending on how far away the
bees were released and how unfamiliar the
terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated
bees.
“We were quite surprised by the magni-
tude of the effect,”
co-author Mickaël Henry
of the French National Institute for Agricul-
tural Research in Avignon says."

"Jeffrey Pettis of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland, doubts
that the mortality rates would cause colony
collapse disorder or other loss of hives, but
says that he is a co-author of a study nearing
publication that will strengthen the case that
neonicotinoids can harm hives.
Other unpub-
lished work shows an impact on native, soli-
tary bees, he says."

http://www.whaleofatime.org/forms/Editorial_science-bees.pdf
 
#136 ·
Then, there is this article: Decourtye’s team glued tiny radio-frequency tags to the backs of 653 honey bees. Up to 43.2% of the bees given a sublethal dose of thiamethoxam didn’t return
to the hive, depending on how far away the bees were released and how unfamiliar the terrain, compared with 16.9% of untreated bees.
“We were quite surprised by the magni-
tude of the effect,”
co-author Mickaël Henry of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Avignon says."
Bayer responded to that study back in the Spring of 2012: "The French honeybee study, though clever in the way it used microchips to follow the bees, is seriously flawed because the dose of pesticides given to the bees was "really way too high," says David Fischer, an ecotoxicologist at the company's U.S. headquarters in North Carolina. He says the bees were exposed to many times more pesticide than they would encounter in the real world."

Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok. Does that about sum it up?
There's been a repeating pattern where most research studies done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll refuse to carry out real world field studies to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.
 
#126 ·
"Research by Jeffrey Pettis of the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory tested bees given doses of imidacloprid – one of these neo-nicotinoid chemicals, which is produced by Bayer CropScience.

His findings are published in the German science journal Naturwissenschaften (CORR).

The study shows that in a laboratory setting infections by the nosema parasite – which gives bees dysentery – increased significantly when they were fed pollen spiked with the imidacloprid and then fed a sugar solution containing the bug, compared to those who did not have the chemical.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...de-blame-catastrophic-decline-honey-bees.html
 
#129 ·
I'm familliar with this study. The bees exposed to nosema were in cages. Bees that died in the cages were not tested for nosema....and one of the controls had a lot of dead bees in the cage. If they died with a nosema infection or co-infection, it would change the results of the study. The bees that died (even from the control cage that had a very high death rate), were discarded and not tested.

deknow
 
#127 ·
Since all neonic labels will tell you that they will kill bees (all you ave to do is read them), I'm not sure how exciting a claim that "neonicotinoids can harm bees" is.

deknow
 
#131 ·
Sure there is...but the quote from Jeff that you cite says nothing about "non-target insects from improper application technique vs systemic reductions in disease resistance from long-term exposure....what you quote him saying is:
he is a co-author of a study nearing
publication that will strengthen the case that
neonicotinoids can harm hives.
 
#128 ·
"Pettis’s study focused on imidacloprid, which like clothianidin is a neonicotinoid pesticide marketed by Bayer as a seed treatment. The findings are pretty ****ing for these nicotine-derived pesticides, according to McCarthy. He summarizes the study like this:

The American study has demonstrated that the insects’ vulnerability to infection is increased by the presence of imidacloprid, even at the most microscopic doses. Dr. Pettis and his team found that increased disease infection happened even when the levels of the insecticide were so tiny that they could not subsequently be detected in the bees, although the researchers knew that they had been dosed with it."

http://grist.org/article/2011-01-21-top-usda-bee-researcher-also-found-bayer-pesticide-harmful/
 
#132 ·
But any bees dying from nosema in this study were not counted. It's like talking about heart attacks, and dismissing anyone with a heart attack that died from it.

You've asked if anyone has read these things...obviously some of us have, and some of us understand what was actually done vs what is claimed.

deknow
 
#133 ·
deKnow,

Just to clarify then: all research studies to date done by scientists not on Bayer or Monsanto's payroll that suggest or allude to negative impacts from neonics on bee colonies are flawed, and, conversely, all research studies/white papers put out by "scientists" on Bayer, Monsanto, or Syngenta's payroll are perfectly ok.

Does that about sum it up?
 
#134 ·
How about reading the studies? How many of the actual studies (as opposed to media reports on the studies) have you actually read? Looked up the references?

You want a simple summary, anyone with an agenda will be happy to offer you one.

I'm happy to discuss the issues with the harvard study in detail here...but if you want to do so, I suggest you read the study, read Randy's critique, and read the powerpoint I posted earlier.

If you want to discuss another study, name it and we can look at it. If you want to trot out soundbite after soundbite to studies you haven't read and don't understand, I'm not terribly interested.

If you want me to make a statement about a buch of studies, some I've read, some I haven't, and only a few that you've named (I guess I'm supposed to have read every study?), tough....I can't talk to you about a study I haven't looked at....or all studies in general. Apparantly, in such matters, you have more skill than I.

deknow
 
#137 · (Edited)
Supporters of neonics and GMO's often claim that their utilization results in less pesticide use which in turn is alleged to be better for bees and better for the environment. However, some folks question this assertion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/
GMO corn and soybeans are sprayed with glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides which are non-toxic to bees at the dilutions and dosages used . Here's a video of the Roundup spraying (note all the birds singing in this corn monoculture setting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZqglw6EmFI

Neonics are coated on the seed and bees are not exposed because bees don't drink hardly any guttation water, don't drink much soybean nectar and don't gather pollen from field corn. In cases of dry soil at planting time and windy weather, bees may be exposed to planter dust, but engineering solutions to prevent the problem will be implemented over the next few years.
 
#138 ·
How about a quick reality check? argueing over dosages and testing is fun...and very interesting... but look at the maps, look where these chems are used and you should be able to point to no bees, or at least above average losses... and those guys in upstate NY and Main, and the fields in the dakotas with miles of Hat should be huge hives and no losses... and yet there is not the case.... lots of national forest that should be pretty free of these chems......and lots of areas like Mine we should not be able to keep a hive alive more than a week or two....... and yet Testing on a GRAND scale bears out the "we put them in a cage and dosed them" methods.....
 
#140 ·
So what if the Lu study was completely hypothetical? Spike the syrup, they won't overwinter well. Interesting. no?

Why is the European experience so different than ours? They have a history of bans, with more than enough success to justify the continent wide ban.

Let's not forget the objections of beekeepers like Steve Ellis. Is he delusional?
 
#143 ·
Mark, have you considered that he isn't really discussing it here? A discussion involves actually looking at the objections and _discussing_ them. Wholesale dismissal of very valid and very well thought out critique is not discussion.

I posted a PDF of some of the powerpoint slides I've used when discussing this paper.

When I gave a presentation on reading studies critically (The People's Homework), I used this one as an example....it was great that several phd scientists of various specialties attended, and at least a few of them had read the paper in advance so they knew what I was talking about. This same venue (Follow The Honey, a honey store in Harvard Square) hosted Dr. Lu (talking about this study specifically), and one of the other study authors (talking about queens, I think). I gave a brief version at our conference one year as well.

I've received no negative feedback on my written critiques or my presentations on the subject from anyone that has read or attended them other than from the study authors and from WLC. One of the study authors did write me about some of my comments....WLC seems free to dismiss them wholesale.

deknow
 
#144 ·
Dean:

As I've said before, Alex Lu won.

We've discussed the critique of the paper a while ago.

I'm not sure why you can't let go of this whole 'unsavory' affair.

Look at the bright side, when his new paper comes out, you can tear into that one all over again.

But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out. :)

It made you guys look kinda unhinged.
 
#147 ·
But, uhhh, leave the character assassination part out. :)

It made you guys look kinda unhinged.
errrr, didn't I quote Dr. Lu trashing another study...on totally bogus grounds? In a public presentation? In a recording that he gave permission to put online?

I'll also point out that if you look at the timeline, you will see (I think), that my comments here on the study predated anything on Bee-L.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?264966-Ccd&p=767435#post767435
Hi all,

I was also at this talk (doing sound) and have a video recording. Please be a bit patient, as I want to follow up with the researcher in question....but I will say that there were some serious flaws in the study, and in the researchers understanding of the technology involved. I can't comment on the study itself (as I haven't read it), but the presentation was ....let me say for the moment...."inaccurate in many ways"....more to come.
 
#151 ·
deKnow,

Just out of curiosity, is there a single study or paper that points to the negative impacts of neonics on bee health that you don't find fault with?

Because there are dozens and dozens of research papers that DO point out potential negative impacts to bee health from neonics--are all of those researchers and all of the peer review panels just getting it wrong?

For the record, this is the EXACT sane type of game that was played when reports of health issues from tobacco, Dioxin, PCB's, etc first became public. Industry "scientists" and industry apologists slammed the data sets, the methods, anything and everything they could to discredit the research and maintain the flow of profits.

Do you find fault with these articles?

"Multiple Routes of Pesticide Exposure for Honey Bees Living Near Agricultural Fields"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250423/?tool=pubmed

"Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495159/

"Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honey bees."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20050872

"High levels of miticides and agrochemicals in North American apiaries: implications for honey bee health."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20333298

"Fatal powdering of bees in flight with particulates of neonicotinoids seed coating and humidity implication."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=0FAD7584A3AEFF8FDE5B08913144106E.d01t03

"Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.3485/abstract

Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?
 
#152 ·
Are all of these studies flawed as well? If you think so, what is your explanation for why so many scientists are "getting it wrong" on neonics and honeybee health?
They're not full field studies designed to see if free living bees pick up a neonic dose on their own (e.g. drink guttation water from corn or soybean leaves or gather pollen from field corn or drink alot of nectar from soybean and canola flowers) and then suffer acute or chronic health problems.

There have been some full field studies like this $950,000 one - conducted by Cynthia Scott-Dupree, a professor in the University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Sciences - which found 'no link between seed treatments [canola] and bee deaths" http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/

"Scott-Dupree said she knows critics will say she’s in Bayer’s back pocket or focus on the study’s weaknesses when it is submitted for publication later this year, even though the EPA and PMRA verified the protocols and an independent quality assurance team supervised data collection and analysis."
 
#155 ·
BigDawg:
Don't forget some of the newer studies by Goulson.
Goulson's studies are not full field studies either:

Dave Goulson study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215025

GOULSON STUDY SUMMARY: "We exposed colonies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris in the lab to field-realistic levels of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, then allowed them to develop naturally under field conditions. Treated colonies had a significantly reduced growth rate and suffered an 85% reduction in production of new queens compared to control colonies. Given the scale of use of neonicotinoids, we suggest that they may be having a considerable negative impact on wild bumble bee populations across the developed world."

BAYER CROPSCIENCE RESPONSE: Dr. Julian Little, spokesman for Bayer Cropscience, criticised Goulson's study because the bees were exposed to imidacloprid in the labaratory, before being placed outside in a natural field environment to feed. "All studies looking at the interaction of bees and pesticides must be done in a full field situation," he said. "This study does not demonstrate that current agricultural practices damage bee colonies." http://tinyurl.com/7n86thg
 
#157 ·
I had this one in mind:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goulsonlab/documents/goulson-2013-jae.pdf

"An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides."

'For the most commonly used seed treatments, reported half-lives in soil typically range from 200 to in excess of 1000 days (range 28–1250 days for imidacloprid; 7–3001 days for thiamethoxam; 148–6931 days for clothianidin; Table 1).'

Yikes!

That suggests to me that neonics can build up to very high levels in certain soils over the years.

...which makes the concentrations used in the Harvard study more realistic, and it can also explain what Steve Ellis is dealing with.

...An environmental pollutant.
 
#166 ·
I had this one in mind: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goulsonlab/documents/goulson-2013-jae.pdf "An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides."
'For the most commonly used seed treatments, reported half-lives in soil typically range from 200 to in excess of 1000 days (range 28–1250 days for imidacloprid; 7–3001 days for thiamethoxam; 148–6931 days for clothianidin; Table 1).' Yikes! That suggests to me that neonics can build up to very high levels in certain soils over the years. ...which makes the concentrations used in the Harvard study more realistic, and it can also explain what Steve Ellis is dealing with....An environmental pollutant.
Dr. David Fischer from Bayer has already addressed the soil buildup issue: http://tinyurl.com/ljmpvqx

Excerpt: "Some residues can remain in the soil beyond harvest and may be present when a succeeding crop is planted. But here's the key thing to keep in mind. Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles. The bottom line is the residues in plants won't be appreciably greater after 7 or even 70 years of continuous use than they were the first year."
 
#161 ·
CCD is nothing compared to this.

The other 25% 0f the 30%?

I think it's going to get alot bigger than just 30%.

However, it's not just Honeybees that we need to be concerned about.

If clothianidin is building up at the rate Goulson is suggesting, somebody is going to notice. Especially if they're near neonic crops on the wrong soil type.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top