Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 245

Thread: CCD Research

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    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.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    26,764

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Compared to this? I thought that CCD was what this whole Thread was about. CCD Research saying that CCD is caused by neonic. No?

    "The other 25% of the 30%?" Reports I have heard of attributed most of the "Winterloss/Die Back" is attributable to nonCCD related causes.
    Mark Berninghausen "That which works, persists."

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,589

    Default Re: CCD Research

    How about you pick one of those studies, read it, and tell me what it is exactly that it proves. Teotting out a bunch of titles doesnt really get us anywhere.

    One thing that continues.to be.at issue is that everyone wants to talk about field realistic dose/exposure, but no onw wants to discuss what that should be. My reading on things is that generally the exposure seems to be.less than one would think.
    The.weird data point, that ive brought up before but no one has picked up on, is the USDA survey of polllen collected from the.comb (not trapped) from 2012. Not a big or general enough survey to tell us much, but 9+% of colonies showed imidacloprid in the pollen samples.....at an average concentration of over 30ppb.

    Before we can even discuss what the impacts are, we have to get some handle on the actual exposure so we know what we are measuring. The USDA data is an important place to look.

    Deknow

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    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/arti...3/?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/1...144106E.d01t03

    "Pesticide-laden dust emission and drift from treated seeds during seed drilling: a review"
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....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?
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
    The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)

    His study really was about the other 25%.

    How long will it take for most soils to accumulate enough contamination before we see greater overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores?

    1 year? 5 years?

    I haven't seen a comprehensive study on neonic levels in the various soil types in the U.S. .

    It probably doesn't exist.

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,589

    Default Re: CCD Research

    We dont have canola here, but I dont think it blooms for more than 21 days, and not always more than 2 weeks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    1. The study was funded by Bayer. 'Nuff said.

    2. The bees were only exposed to the canola fields for TWO WEEKS.

    3. The canola field they were exposed to were only 25% in bloom.

    4. The final insecticide residue analysis has not yet been released, and, given who paid for the study I wouldn't hold my breath....

    So, while you dismiss laboratory studies because they make neonics look bad, you trot out this study as somehow being more "real world?" Seriously? How many bees do you know that only visit a flowering field for 2 weeks when it's only 25% in bloom? Where else on the planet are bees in an agricultural area where neonics are used only going to be exposed to neonic-coated seed plants for only 2 weeks?
    Last edited by deknow; 07-03-2013 at 05:06 PM. Reason: 2 weeks, not 2 days
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I had this one in mind: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lifesci/goul...n-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 281250 days for imidacloprid; 73001 days for thiamethoxam; 1486931 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."

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,589

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
    Sure they did...but they didn't explore that possibility in their study, and at least 2 of the 3 authors deny this is what happened.
    It would also have been nice to know how contaminated the stores were....something one would look at if they were considering the possibility that contaminated stores was the cause of hive collapse.

    The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)
    ....and the last time I heard Dr. Lu speak on the subject, he stated explicitly that (paraphrase)'scientists are now changing their definition of CCD based on our study'

    I asked him which scientists when and where.....he didn't know. That's when he dropped the gem that as far as defining CCD, wikipedia was "the gold standard".....but given that the hives were found without queens, the wikipedia definition (at least at the time) specifically excludes the symtpoms they induced from being considered CCD.

    deknow

    deknow
    The irony is free. It's the sarcasm you are paying for....ironically.
    -Felicity Jones in "Chalet Girl"

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    You're missing the whole picture.

    Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted.

    The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.

    The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .
    They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .

    Perhaps if they performed some column migration studies for different soil types, they could understand this effect more clearly.

    Which soil types bind the neonics tightly, and which ones release it easily upon 'irrigation'.

    Also, since farmers do use many kinds of soil conditioners, they might release any neonics that are tightly bound to clays or other minerals.
    Last edited by WLC; 07-03-2013 at 05:34 PM.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Idaho
    Posts
    446

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I think that the Harvard study showed overwintered colony losses due to contaminated stores.
    The colonies collapsed, but it wasn't 'classic' CCD. (That's what his detractors have been saying all along.)
    how does he know that the collapse were not from mites?
    Dave
    Last edited by Barry; 07-04-2013 at 12:00 PM.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    If you read the article from the first post of the thread, they treated and didn't see any mites.

    Ditto for the overwintered colony losses. It didn't kill them right away.

  11. #171
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    "Most of this residue is not bioavailable to plants because it becomes tightly bound to soil particles."

    So, according to Goulson, 90% of the neonics from the seed coat end up in the soil, and not in the plant.

    That's alot of residue left 'tightly bound' in the soil, don't you think?

  12. #172
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    You're missing the whole picture. Investigators have reported that flowering plants on the margins of neonic treated fields have tested positive for high levels of neonics the year after the crop was planted. The neonics eventually contaminate water sources.The neonics are a residual contaminant, that can bind to clays, etc. .They get released by irrigation, rain, etc. .
    With what health and abundance consequences for pollinators? Dave Goulson hasn't documented that honeybees are actually having widespread and unexplained health problems in the regions (like Steve Ellis's region of west-central Minnesota) where - for the past 5+ consecutive years - the landscape has been covered with crop monocultures grown from neonic treated seed. Or documented that pollinators such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, etc. are no longer abundant on the margins of the neonic treated fields. They ARE abundant, as I show in this long 16 minute video I shot last August in the heart of the corn and soy neonic monocultures of south-central Minnesota (just 70 miles southeast from Barrett, Minnesota where Steve Ellis lives): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZCOJnJU1UE

  13. #173
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    OK BD.

    But, is anyone measuring the soil levels of neonic residues?

    So, where is the 30% winter mortality number coming from?

    Is that 'bogus'?

  14. #174
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    26,764

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Where does the number come from or what is causing that number ofhive mortality to occur? What r u asking? The number was reported by the Apiary Inspector of America.
    Mark Berninghausen "That which works, persists."

  15. #175
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Well, it sounds like he's saying that non of those 30% losses could have been due to neonics.

    Am I wrong?

  16. #176
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Brasher Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    26,764

    Default Re: CCD Research

    He? Which he?
    Mark Berninghausen "That which works, persists."

  17. #177
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flora,IL
    Posts
    2,644

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    The.weird data point, that ive brought up before but no one has picked up on, is the USDA survey of polllen collected from the.comb (not trapped) from 2012. Not a big or general enough survey to tell us much, but 9+% of colonies showed imidacloprid in the pollen samples.....at an average concentration of over 30ppb.


    Deknow
    Very intersting, Are you saying that the 30ppb is a high number or a low number? I am not up on what or how exposure numbers rank. I would also be curious as to where the sample was from?? Might be valuable to caompare numbers from differnt areas and compare that to mortality numbers.

  18. #178
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon USA
    Posts
    323

    Default Re: CCD Research

    An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop. A three year, $6 million study showed GMO crops to be more harmful to many groups of wildlife than their conventional equivalents.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3196768.stm

  19. #179
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sacramento, Calif. USA
    Posts
    272

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDawg View Post
    An often overlooked aspect of GMO crops is the fact that conspicuous use of RR crops means less weedy species for bee and other pollinators to forage on. Indeed, GMO crops become a form of "bio-desert" where nothing else grows but the GM crop.
    GMO corn or non-GMO, the corn plants nowadays are so tightly spaced that pollinators can't gain access to weeds that might be growing under the corn crop canopy from July onwards: https://imageshack.com/a/img21/7131/7e45.jpg
    And GMO or non-GMO, the field margins / ditches / roadsides still have flowering plants in most cases (e.g. alfalfa, red clover, thistles, sunflowers, milkweeds) and those plants set plenty of seed because there are plenty of pollinators in those field margins.

  20. #180
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chardon, Ohio
    Posts
    84

    Default Re: CCD Research

    Part of the registration package of studies required for any pesticide by the US, Canada, Europe, or any other place in the world is called environmental fate. Those E Fate studies involve dosing various soil samples with the test substance, incubating under real life conditions and showing what the pesticides fate is. Fate means how long it takes to degrade (half life), what the various degradation products are and how long they take to degrade if such studies are appropriate. These degradation tests have to be done with various soil types. Typically registration studies are not published as they are private information between the pesticide registrant and the government. If the registrant wishes to publish he is free to do so. On the other hand he has spent many millions of dollars and many years generating this data and may not wish to share it with his competitors for rather obvious reasons.

    The same situation exists with crop residues. For any crop the registrant wishes to have on his label he must provide the various government agencies with residue data. This data is generated by treating test plots of crops grown under real agricultural conditions, harvested by normal agricultural methods, sometimes even shipped to markets for that product under normal handling and then sampled. Typically the lab work involves determining both the level of residue of the pesticide as well as the levels of any metabolites that are of biological interest. Obviously metabolites such as water are not of biological interest. Again registrants spend many millions of dollars generating this type of date for each labeled crop and are not generally willing to share such data publicly, but are required by law to supply this data to the various regulatory agencies.

    There are also migratory studies to show how the pesticide moves in the soil or water, how metabolites of interest move in soil, impact on non target species such as bees, bio-accumulation studies, etc that are all part of the registration package. Also degradation studies that show how the product bio-degrade pathway in treated plants (if taken up by the plant), how it biodegrades in various animal species, etc. As well as more tests triggered by any bio-degradation product that may be toxic.

    In addition there are many, many studies of the pesticide and metabolites of interest in various animal species. These studies must show things like no effect levels, lack of mutagenicity, lack of cancers, lack of induced allergic reactions, lack of negative impact on reproduction, and on and on.

    All of this type of data for pesticides must be generated using good laboratory practices (GLP). GLP is mainly about documentation of exactly what you did, including calibration data for all balances and instruments used, how the sample was handled, lot numbers of all reagents used, etc. The fines and jail terms for falsifying data are very real and very scary to any rational person doing such studies. After a company has spent maybe $50 million or so putting a registration package together he does not wish to risk the regulatory agency throwing out his registration package because one study has been falsified. The agencies do both announced and unannouced inspections of the whole data generation process as they wish. They often simply show up at your door and tell you today is inspection day. When they show up you welcome them and show them anything they wish to look at. They are very, very good at finding the smallest error. If you do not have a written procedure for how you will round off numbers and follow that procedure every single time you are in trouble.

    The studies required and what GLP is all about are all a matter of pubic record and can be found for the US in the code of federal regulations. So, anyone who wishes to better understand this process should feel free to go to a good library and start reading.

    Such studies are not one time and we are done items. Often new studies are triggered by learning something under actual use that suggests new studies are required, Periodically the agencies add new rules or change the old rules so studies must be repeated. Also as technology advances new types of studies are added as requirements to maintain registrations. And, it looks like reregistration of all pesticides may well be required about once every 25 years or so based on the last 50 years history. Such reregistration studies mean throw out all the old data and start over with brand new studies. I would guess today it costs someplace around $100 million in such studies to bring a brand new product to market. And, I would guess it probably costs another $10 million per year for studies to support a product until reregistration is next triggered. The paper for a registration study would fill a fairly large delivery van. My costs may be low as they are now dated badly. It has been 17 years since I was current.

    So, no one on this group may know a thing about how long any particular pesticide lasts in the environment and may never know. That does not mean the people that have a need to know do not have excellent data. In fact if the product is registered the people that need to know do have excellent data. Published data from any academic institution will never be generated under GLP so the regulatory agencies rightfully do not have the slightest interest in such data. Any accusation that the data does not exist is simply ignorance of the registration process and ignorance of the law. Further, the data is none of your business. You have the right to feel the agencies try hard to protect consumer safety but not the right to see any data. Therein lies the rub as none of us has much faith in government in general. That includes me to a fair extent. But, having worked with the FDA and EPA I do have confidence that both know what they are doing and do it well but miserably slowly.

    The US EPA would roll on the floor laughing if anyone submitted the Harvard neonic-bee study. They would rate it as meaningless.

Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads