How Healthy Were the Cornell Study Monarch Caterpillars?

[Stelenes at aol.com]

Good point, Paul, but while you are on your roll, please consider most of us 
who have reared (Are they not REARERS rather than breeders as you have 
labeled them?...Breeders implies a selection process to me, or at minimum 
going through multiple generations) can relate to the difficulties of this 
process of obtaining good stock consistently.

Now for my question:  Was the study not at least controlled experiment at the 
most basic level?  I find it hard to believe that Nature editors and 
reviewers would allow this.  Surely the 40% mortality, or whatever the figure 
was, is compared to an identical population not feeding on dusted hostplant?  
It is not an absolute value without reference, right?

As long as there was a control, then this is an interesting point to 
consider, but IMHO probably not a critical flaw to the experiment IF ALL ELSE 
FOLLOWED LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY.  And if there wasn't, well did 
someone already say "hogwash?"

Perhaps other appropriate control(s) in this experiment would have been to 
dust the milkweed with the insecticide(s) the Bt replaced.  I bet they all 
would have croaked, healthy or not.  Then again, for a few bucks or perhaps a 
friendly challenge, someone could work out the toxicity limits and exposure 
limits you all have pointed out are sadly lacking. 

By the way, isn't butterfly count data (Monarch Watch, NABA/Xerces) available 
that could be analyzed without additional investment, comparing areas planted 
with the corn vs. not last year, or is this not available yet?

Probably by the time the experiment is done, the corn breeders will already 
have improved varieties in which the Bt insecticide is only released in the 
tissue the major Lepidopteran pests attack.  I understand that this doesn't 
include the pollen...

Best wishes

Doug Dawn
Monterrey, Mexico
Woodland, California