[wildbranch2007]

In their experiment, the researchers spiked nectar with a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids at a similar concentration that's been found in wild flowers.

I do have to admit, I'm really getting sick of all these articles where they feed the bees a pesticide, that is designed to kill insects, and expect any other result.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/03/world/baby-bees-brains-pesticides-scn/index.html

 

[jonsl]

I would be leery if they were adding more than the amount found in natural nectar. However this is the only way to do a controlled scientific study.

 

[wildbranch2007]

I would be leery if they were adding more than the amount found in natural nectar. However this is the only way to do a controlled scientific study.

except the real nectar coming in gets processed in the workers stomach when she transports it back, again when it's moved from the entrance to the cell, so tell me how much of that amount should be actually fed to the lava?? there would be more control by putting a hive near a field, then going into the hive and check out the young bees for damage. they seem just as smart now as when I first started bee keeping.

 

[crofter]

Treated with nectar contaminated to a level "that has been found" in flowers........ It does not say what the levels actually were. It does not state what the levels would be on crops typically when treated at recommended levels. Potentially a big wiggle room there.

Did they start out with the premise that the pesticides had this effect and increased dosages until the preconceived effect was observed. Perhaps the experiment was totally objective, but without description of the control parameters, such a piece of work is worth less than nothing. I would say it smells of agenda.

 

[zabadoh]

You guys are just terrible at research... A casual google for pesticides and bee development led me to the same research on a different site:

https://scitechdaily.com/baby-bee-b...red-by-pesticides-permanent-and-irreversible/

This in turn has a reference to the actual paper:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2442

The paper itself states the concentrations of the pesticide that was given to the bumblebees:

In-hive exposure to developing individuals was achieved by spiking the sucrose solution provisioned to each colony with 5 parts per billion (ppb) imidacloprid (see electronic supplementary material for preparation). This is a neonicotinoid that: (i) is used across the globe [13,50–52]; (ii) targets nACh receptors found in insect brains [53,54]; (iii) has been shown to affect bee foraging and navigation reliant on aspects of learning behaviour [7–9]; (iv) is at a concentration approximating that found in pollen and nectar of crop and wild flowers that bees forage on [20,55,56].

It refers to 3 other studies about the concentrations found in the wild:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.0558
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x

Different groups of bumblebees were exposed to the pesticides at different stages of their development and tested for learning ability at different stages of their lives.

 

[Roland]

As a reference, 5 ppb of imidicloprid is the Level of Detection for pesticide residue testing (I looked at my lab results). Anything less than 5 ppb willl show up as a "Zero".

Crazy Roland

 

[jonsl]

except the real nectar coming in gets processed in the workers stomach when she transports it back, again when it's moved from the entrance to the cell, so tell me how much of that amount should be actually fed to the lava?? there would be more control by putting a hive near a field, then going into the hive and check out the young bees for damage. they seem just as smart now as when I first started bee keeping.

The problem with this suggestion is that scientific studies need to be controllable and repeatable. If you use bees out in a field they will forage within a 3 mile radius. How do you know what the level of pesticide is in that radius? Being repeatable is how the scientific method works. Why? Because for a result to be accepted it needs to be repeated by another independent researcher. How would another researcher be able to control for those same conditions? Also you need to make this controllable which means you need to identify the amount of pesticide you are measuring and the absence of the pesticide. The sugar syrup that is fed needs to have the precise amount of pesticide in it and another group of bees need to be fed sugar syrup without any pesticide at all in it. Also the people feeding the sugar need to be different people than the ones who are preparing the syrup and not know which is which.

 

[Roland]

Jonsl - True, scientific method must be upheald, but how do you verify your syrup is "clean" if the level of pesticides that causes ill effects is bellow the level of detection??

Crazy Roland

 

[jonsl]

Jonsl - True, scientific method must be upheald, but how do you verify your syrup is "clean" if the level of pesticides that causes ill effects is bellow the level of detection??

Crazy Roland

Does it matter? If the level being tested is the same as what is found in nectar and the amount in the "clean" syrup is not detectable and the bees fed the detectable sample show diminished learning.

 

[Roland]

Jonsl - I see your point, results are results. In general, getting close to detectable levels is grounds for suspicions. Too many "other" things may have effects at unmeasurable levels.

Do I believe believe these low levels are causing [email protected]#$ yes. Do I believe there are even more unmeasurable sources, such as weeds growing near crops grown from coated seeds?....... You can bet your bippie (Rowan and Martin).

My point is that things get hard to prove with out a doubt when you get close to the level of detection.

Crazy Roland

 

[jonsl]

Rowan and Martin, I'm probably one of the few around that understands that reference.

 

[Schultz]

Rowan and Martin, I'm probably one of the few around that understands that reference.

No.

 

[JWPalmer]

I still use that expression. Crap, I must be old.

 

[jonsl]

JW, I retract what I said. Maybe this from your profile sums it up: I have been fascinated by beekeeping since I was young. Now I am old enough to pursue it with passion. I guess I'm one of MANY here that understands that reference.

 

[JWPalmer]

Jonsl, I am actually a youngster compared to some of the beekeepers on this forum. But at just shy of 60, I no longer FEEL young. I use expressions like "Heah come da Judge" from Flip Wilson, and have been caught humming bars from the song "Where oh Where are You Tonight?" from Hee Haw.

 

[jonsl]

And you probably know what a Walnetto is.

 

[Dabbler]

And you probably know what a Walnetto is.

I STILL want one !