<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19190"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>
<HR>
From: gludwig@almondboard.com<BR>To: Ladadams@aol.com<BR>Sent: 4/9/2012 5:30:36
P.M. Pacific Daylight Time<BR>Subj: FW: CA Beekeeper&apos;s&apos;
rebuttal to Harvard Study<BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV> </DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000
size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Hi
Laurie,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">As an FYI, you may want to
attach this along with the just sent out notice re the study from Harvard.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d">Gabriele<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: #1f497d"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Monday, April 09,
2012 1:03 PM<BR><B>Subject:</B> CA Beekeeper's' rebuttal to Harvard
Study<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Randy
Oliver, a beekeeper in CA,</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> was one of
many who posted a rebuttal to the Harvard paper on imidacloprid and bees. "My
reading of the paper suggests that the author knows little about bees, little
about pesticides, nothing about HFCS, had no understanding of the distribution
of systemic pesticides in plants. This paper is an example of authors so bent
on 'proving' that imidacloprid is the cause of CCD, that they strain credulity
with some of their assumptions and reasoning, and even by changing the
experimental protocol midstream!"</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" lang=EN>To
read the entire article, please see below.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
lang=EN>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>News Items<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The Harvard Study on imidacloprid and CCD<BR>April
2012<o:p></o:p></SPAN></B></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Re this study, at first glance it appears to support the hypothesis
that chronic exposure to field realistic doses of imidacloprid during summer
and fall can lead to late winter collapse of the treated colonies.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The study got off to a good start—several colonies were fed different
“field realistic” doses of imidacloprid in syrup, and colony populations and
brood area were measured. If the authors would have stuck to this
original design (which has already been performed numerous times in several
countries) the results would have been meaningful. Indeed, after a month
of feeding such syrup, the investigators did not observe any adverse effects
upon the colonies due to the insecticide!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>But then, since the lead investigator seemed to be eager to “prove”
that CCD is caused by imidacloprid, he dreamed up the fantastic scenario that
in the winter of 2006/2007 that for some inexplicable reason the nation’s
supply of HFCS was contaminated with high levels of imidacloprid. My
reading of the paper suggests that the author knows little about bees, little
about pesticides, nothing about HFCS, had no understanding of the distribution
of systemic pesticides in plants. This paper is an example of authors so
bent on “proving” that imidacloprid is the cause of CCD, that they strain
credulity with some of their assumptions and reasoning , and even by changing
the experimental protocol midstream!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>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 acutely 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, the symptoms of the colonies when they died did not
match the symptoms of CCD, yet the Harvard press agent claimed that they
did!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Unfortunately, there are also a great number of factual
misrepresentations and quite a bit of fuzzy thinking in the paper, which
obviously was not peer reviewed by any bee biologist nor toxicologist.
I realize, in retrospect, that some of my comments may sound a bit
snarky, and I apologize to the authors, whom I’m sure were earnest in their
quest to prove their anti-neonic agenda. Back to the paper, allow me to
discuss some of the problems. The author stated in an
interview: <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“When other conditions cause hive collapse—such as disease or
pests—many dead bees are typically found inside and outside the affected
hives.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Could someone please refresh my memory? Other than in the case
of tracheal mite, which diseases or pests leave many dead bees in a hive?
(Note that starvation or acute pesticide toxicity would not fall into
the category of “disease or pest”). The point is, that the natural
behavior of sick or old bees is to abandon the hive—one normally does not find
dead bees in hives that have died from parasites, including
viruses.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Let’s look at a few more sentences from the paper:
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“We hypothesized that the first occurrence of CCD in 2006/2007
resulted from the presence of imidacloprid … in high-fructose corn syrup
(HFCS), fed to honey bees as an alternative to sucrose-based food. There are
three facts to support this hypothesis. First, since most of the suspected but
creditable causes for CCD were not new to apiculture, there must have been an
additional new stressor introduced to honey bee hives contemporaneous with the
first occurrence of CCD during the winter months of 2006 and early
2007.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“their beekeeping practices have been relatively unchanged during
these years except for the replacement of honey or sucrose with HFCS as the
supplemental sugar source for economic and convenient reasons…. Although
the replacement of honey/sucrose-based feeds with HFCS among commercial
beekeepers took place much earlier than 2006/2007, it was the timing of the
introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides to the cornseed treatment program
first occurring in 2004/2005 that coincides with CCD
emergence.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The authors give no justification for their assumption that there was
any change in HFCS in 2006. And as Bob Harrison and others have pointed
out, CCD actually started occurring in 2004-2005, prior to the authors’
assumption that tainted syrup hit the market beginning in 2006. Any HFCS
produced from such treated corn would have necessarily have been produced
following the season of harvest.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN> ”Second, while commercial beekeepers appear to be affected
by CCD at a disproportional rate…”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>This is simply not true according to any of the several surveys that
I’ve seen (see papers by CCD researcher Dennis van Engelsdorp). Indeed
beekeepers who have never fed HFCS experienced plenty of cases of
CCD.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The authors then cite a few studies that show that systemic
insecticides are translocated, as they are intended, throughout the
plants. But then they stretch by stating:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“ These study results lend credence to our hypothesis that the
systemic property of imidacloprid is capable of being translocated from
treated seeds to the whole plant, including corn kernels and therefore likely
into HFCS.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>My gosh, this is one helluva assumption! Without taking the time
to simply confirm that imidacloprid winds up in the kernels, the authors
<U>assume</U> that it is concentrated there at high levels! And
then they further go out on a limb by <U>assuming</U> that any such
imidacloprid is then somehow concentrated when the corn is used to produce
HFCS (ignoring the fact that most corn is treated with clothianidin,
rather than imidacloprid):<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The paper turns into farce when the author
states:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“we used food-grade HFCS fortified with different levels of
imidacloprid, mimicking the levels that are assumed to have been present in
the older HFCS.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Why in the world would the authors “assume” that imidacloprid was
present in the older HFCS, but not present in the HFCS that he used in the
current study to feed the control colonies? But then they go on to
state:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“ The range of dosages used in this study from 20 to 400 ìg/kg were
not only environmentally relevant…”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Since when has 400 ppb ever been been considered to be
“environmentally relevant”? Levels of 1-4 ppb are environmentally
relevant; levels above 40 ppb are usually considered to be overtly toxic.
So the 400 ppb figure is 100 – 400 times as strong as the normal
measured levels in the field due to seed
treatment. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>As if that weren’t enough, the authors go into la-la land with some
even wilder creative assumptions:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“Since there is no tolerance level for imidacloprid in HFCS, we
applied a 10-fold concentrating factor, or 0.5 ppm (500 ìg/kg) of imidacloprid
in HFCS, by taking into account the uptake by corn plants from seeds that are
treated with imidacloprid.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>They simply created this “concentrating factor” out of thin air!
They give absolutely no justification for it. In the actual
process of making HFCS, pesticides are largely removed. As I stated
before, all that the authors had to do would have been to ask Roger
Simonds at the USDA Gastonia pesticide testing lab as to the actual measured
levels of imidacloprid in HFCS, and thus would not have brought embarrassment
to Harvard School of Public Health by such a ludicrous
assumption.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>“Therefore, we are confident that the imidacloprid dosages applied in
this study would be comparable, if not lower to those encountered by honey
bees inside and outside of their hives.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Unfortunately, the authors’ confidence is not supported by any actual
field measurements whatsoever!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The authors state: “There are several questions that remain unanswered
as a result of this study. First, the systematic loss of sealed brood in the
imidacloprid-treated and control hives may indicate a common stress factor
that was present across all 4 apiaries.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Like, maybe the field investigators should have taken a few nosema or
varroa counts, rather than simply assuming that these common parasites weren’t
killing the colonies! For all we know, all the hives could have bee
crawling with varroa or badly infected with nosema. One statement
suggests that varroa was evident: “nor a large number of Varroa mites was
observed in hives during the summer and fall seasons,” which suggests to me
that the investigators are admitting that some something less than a “large”
number of mites was indeed observed! <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Let’s look at varroa: the study states that 3-lb packages were
installed on March 28. Surprisingly, “By May 21st, 2010 all twenty
frames in each of 20 hives were drawn out into comb and contained at least 14
frames of capped brood.” These colonies really took off, meaning that
they were virtual varroa breeding grounds. By late July they averaged
about 25,000 cells of sealed brood.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Strange and Calderone (2009) found Eastern package bees to contain
about 3 mites per hundred bees, which would work out to about 300 mites in a
3-lb package. When colonies are rapidly expanding, mite populations
double each month. So from late March through late July, we’d expect the
mite populations in these hives to reach 4,800 by late July. This is a
very serious mite infestation level! Yet, the researchers waited until
October 5 to treat with Apistan strips (which are ineffective against mites in
many areas of the U.S.)! Any experienced beekeeper would suggest that
these colonies died from a varroa/Deformed Wing Virus epidemic, which leaves
deadouts, as the authors observed, “remarkably empty except for stores of food
and some pollen left on the frames.” Unfortunately, the authors only
included a photo of a honey frame, rather than a brood frame, which might have
been helpful in diagnosing the actual cause of death! The dosing with
high levels of an insecticide would be expected to cause the treated colonies
to suffer more from varroa than the untreated controls.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The description of the dead colonies does not match the definitive
signs of CCD at all—there was a dwindling of population, rather than a sudden
collapse, and no abandoned brood. <B>Rather the descriptions of the
deadouts more closely matched dwindling collapse due to varroa/virus or
nosema.</B> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>The authors, on a roll, simply do not know when to stop: “If
imidacloprid exposure is truly the sole cause of CCD, it might also explain
the scenario in which CCD occurred in honey bee hives not fed with HFCS.
Considering the sensitivity of honey bees to imidacloprid as
demonstrated in this study and the widespread uses of imidacloprid and other
neonicotinoid insecticides, pollen, nectar, and guttation drops produced
from those plants would have contained sufficient amounts of neonicotinoid
insecticide residues to induce CCD.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>What are they talking about when they say “considering the
sensitivity”? Even the lowest fed dosage (20 ppb) is about 5-20 times
higher than that commonly found in nectar, and the other three doses were
far higher–it is amazing to me that the colonies were not killed outright!
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Speaking of which, I find it odd that the investigators didn’t give
any explanation as to why they changed treatment dosages mid trial.
To their credit, they initially treated the colonies with “field
realistic” doses of the insecticide: 0.1 – 10 ppb. I suspect that
after feeding the colonies for four straight weeks in July, and not noticing
any adverse effects, that they then decided that they had better really hit
the colonies hard if they wanted to “prove their case”–so they arbitrarily
ramped up the lowest dose to 200 times stronger, and the highest dose to 40x
stronger (that oughtta do it!).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>I can only imagine their surprise and disappointment when after nine
weekly feedings of a full half gallon of syrup intentionally spiked to widely
accepted toxic levels, that they still noted virtually no adverse effects!
Surprisingly, the amount of broodrearing was unaffected at the 20,
40, and 200 ppb dosages, and only slightly depressed at the clearly toxic 400
ppb dose! Note that the colonies were all still alive at midwinter, 3
months after the dosing ended. If anything, this study clearly
demonstrated that colonies of bees can survive prolonged poisoning by
imidacloprid at excessively high levels!<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>So why did the colonies die? Such insecticide exposure to hives
in late summer has been previously demonstrated to greatly increase the chance
of a colony later dying from nosema or varroa infection during the winter.
In this study, poisoning the colonies all through late summer and early
fall likely hampered the ability of the colonies to prepare a healthy
population for winter. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>Oddly, the investigators also took biweekly measurements of the
cluster sizes of the colonies, yet chose not to include the results in
the paper. This makes me wonder whether the authors simply decided to
exclude any data that did not support their
hypothesis.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>So although this paper is surely going to be cited by anti-neonic
advocates as some sort of supportive evidence, I find it to be a case in which
an initially well-designed study (the dosing of hives with a series of four
field realistic doses of imidacloprid) turned to farce when the investigators
arbitrarily ramped up the doses, and blew it on parasite
management.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>In my assessment, it appears that the data from this study actually
support an alternative hypothesis–that field realistic doses of imidacloprid
had no measurable adverse effects upon the colonies. And even patently
toxic doses had little immediate effect. I suspect that the apparent
delayed effect was due to the impact of the insecticide upon late summer
colony populations (which the authors inexplicably did not present), which led
to later collapse due to parasite buildup.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>In reality, the neonicotinoids fully appear to be “reduced risk”
insecticides, which under field conditions, when properly applied (no dust
issues) have never been associated with significant colony health
issues. Compared to alternative insecticides, the data to date
(including that of this study) support the hypothesis that neonicotinoids are
an improvement over the previous classes of insecticides (there are clearly
some questions about dust issues, chemigation, foliar and landscape
treatments, which I will discuss in an upcoming
article).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN>I find it unfortunate that the press, including both of our national
bee journals, gave publicity to this paper without any sort of critical
analysis. Such messages only confuse the public. Pesticides are a
major issue to the beekeeping community. What we need are well designed
and executed studies, (as well as better enforcement of pesticide law) in
order to solve these problems. Sadly, this study just confuses the
issues.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"
lang=EN><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"><A
title=http://scientificbeekeeping.com/
href="http://scientificbeekeeping.com/">http://scientificbeekeeping.com/</A><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype','serif'"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" class=MsoNormal align=center><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 7.5pt">
<HR align=center SIZE=2 width="100%">
</SPAN></DIV></DIV>=</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>