Pesticides halve bees' pollen gathering ability, research shows

Bumblebees exposed to controversial pesticides collect just half the pollen they would otherwise harvest, according to new research, depriving their growing young of their only source of protein.

The work has been hailed as important by independent scientists because it sheds light on how the neonicotinoid pesticides can harm bees.

"Pollen is the only source of protein that bees have, and it is vital for rearing their young," said Professor Dave Goulson, at the University of Sussex and who led the study. "Collecting it is fiddly, slow work for the bees and intoxicated bees become much worse at it. Without much pollen, nests will inevitably struggle."

Pesticides halve bees' pollen gathering ability, research shows

This new scientific study from an independent source shows that the bees bring around 60 percent less pollen to the hive when they are intoxicated with the neonicitinoids.. which are a highly toxic pesticide that is bringing about a 'Silent Spring' event. The EU has banned this for 3 years.

Syngenta and Bayer the two companies purveying this have fought tooth and nail to assure open markets for this toxin. The FDA has done nothing. It is time that they act to protect this important creature.

What is this ... the third thread on pesticides inside of 24 hours? There's a conspiracy here. LOL

I like the term 'Silent Spring.' First time I've seen it.

By the time they get this verified the bees will be extinct. It will be many years. Once a chemical is approved, it takes an act of congress backed by hundreds of studies proving it is bad to get the chemical banned. Look at DDT. Once approved, the FDA backs the company. The FDA officials do not want people to think they made a mistake.

reply to post by R_Clark

In looking at your source article, I find some interesting comments which tend to raise some questions.

The ability of bees to collect sugary nectar did not differ significantly between the bees.

I'm curious about being able to collect nectar, but not pollen. I don't, offhand, have an explanation for that.

"The important questions over what is a 'field-realistic' dose are not settled and they remain open. The [levels in this study], particularly the pollen level, are at the upper end of what is found in the field, and likely to be higher than what bumblebee colonies are actually exposed to, because they don't feed exclusively on oilseed rape."

Pesticide manufacturers argue that controlled studies do not replicate actual field conditions. Julian Little, a spokesman for Bayer, which makes imidacloprid, said: "It would appear the bumble bees are essentially force-fed relatively high levels of the pesticide in sugar solutions, rather than allowing them to forage on plants treated with a seed treatment. Real field studies, such as those being initiated this autumn in the UK will give more realistic data on this subject."

This makes me wonder about the accuracy of this test. I'm also curious about the upcoming field tests this autumn. If the pesticide makers agree that those tests will provide more realistic data, isn't the best course to see what that data is?

Researchers have argued that conducting properly controlled field trials is difficult, because neonicotinoids are very widely used and bees range over wide areas in search of food.

It does bother me that even the investigators seem to be saying they didn't have a properly controlled test.

Just a couple of thoughts.

reply to post by charles1952


Maybe the proteins in the pollen at some of the plants aren't quite right. The bees can tell. They can still get the nectar without taking the pollen I suppose.

reply to post by charles1952


Investigators are not saying that they didn't conduct properly controlled tests. What they are saying is that the tests the the pesticide companies are waiting for will likely be flawed because the results will rely on improperly controlled conditions. The pesticide company knows this which is why they are pushing this. But hey let's just let them do what they want because they are just bees after all and their right to make money is greater right? I mean so what if their making money kills off the bee population and wipes out the food supply.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

So that makes experiments which don't reflect natural conditions valid?

This does not come from the pesticide manufacturers:

"The important questions over what is a 'field-realistic' dose are not settled and they remain open. The [levels in this study], particularly the pollen level, are at the upper end of what is found in the field, and likely to be higher than what bumblebee colonies are actually exposed to, because they don't feed exclusively on oilseed rape."

I mean so what if their making money kills off the bee population and wipes out the food supply.

Are you talking about the farmers who use the pesticides in order to increase their production?

Snarl

I like the term 'Silent Spring.' First time I've seen it.

It's a book title, the one that ended up being instrumental in banning DDT. Unfortunately, the author sort of lied about the subject a bit.

charles1952
reply to post by R_Clark

 

I'm curious about being able to collect nectar, but not pollen. I don't, offhand, have an explanation for that.

Male bees do not collect pollen; as they dont have a pollen basket (corbicula)
That said, its already been proven that pesticides are detrimental to all bees.


Pesticides Linked To Honeybee Decline

KeliOnyx
reply to post by charles1952

 

The pesticide company knows this which is why they are pushing this. But hey let's just let them do what they want because they are just bees after all and their right to make money is greater right? I mean so what if their making money kills off the bee population and wipes out the food supply.

Companies, such as Monsanto and Bayer are chemical companies - the bottom line
for them is they only care about profits - so if they wipe out the ecosystems, they
will find a way to profit from it you can count on that.

reply to post by R_Clark


No bees, no water, no food.

Great profits though.


F&S&

soficrow
reply to post by R_Clark

 

No bees, no water, no food.

Great profits though.


F&S&

I don't think bees make water. Also, there weren't any honeybees in the Americas prior to the Europeans introducing them.

reply to post by Bedlam

I don't think bees make water.

lol. Neither do I. I was referring to the current drought in California, as well as everywhere else.