A new theory for why bees are declining
vox.com
vox.com
There seems to be a bit of a language war taking place. The Science abstract suggests "reducing pesticide use through adopting more sustainable farming methods", while the Vox article talks about "reducing pesticide use when possible". The news article phrasing suggests that pesticide reduction is optional.
The Science title is "Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers", while the Vox title is "A new theory for why the bees are vanishing". The paper clearly blames pesticides, while the vox title suggests (on a quick read) that pesticides are really only a theory, and may not be the latest one at that.
One HN comment states "It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just assuming the reason is obvious." The corollary is that maybe we should research more and wait before drawing conclusions. I agree with the statement, but not the corollary.
I grew up with the schoolyard buzzing in summer time. In Vancouver, Bumble bees and honey bees were everywhere when the flowers bloomed. At recess and lunch, the grass would be a blur of flying insects and a single clover would often be crawling with several bees. Those days are long gone. The fields are dead. Wikipedia tells me that some of the species may be extinct. I think the time to act was long ago. I hope it is not too late.
Since you appear to be Canadian, how do you feel about the pneumatic planter dust-off rules (talc/graphite ban) that were implemented last year? It never seems to get any media attention for some reason, and thus never attracts much discussion either. The early reports from Health Canada about the year's die-off, post-change, looked promising although I admittedly haven't followed up since that was released.
[1] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/pollina...
I really don't understand why there's debate over the notion that insecticide use is killing insects. This is incredibly obvious. Bees are dependent on flowering plants, which we have recently begun spraying with poison to prevent them being eaten by insects. Bees are also insects.
Especially if we plan to reduce the damage to their ecosystem.
Bit it is worth pointing out that it's hardly unlikely or improbable that insecticides damage a particular type of insect.
We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptually, we'll never have "complete" security in computer systems.
Especially when one of the big players is a corporation who's very glad to sell contaminated products. Do you really think that they're keen on finding the "truth" (a reasonable one) about neonicotinoids? I'm sure they're already very active in obfuscating research.
Besides, in a context where pesticides usage is alarming (or extensive to say the list), why should should be allowed to use something until it's "exactly" proved as harmful, instead of preventing it until it's "exactly" proven as harmless? Of course, reality is more complex, but again, in context, the first option should not be obvious or granted.
The neonics in question are typically applied as a seed treatment, not sprayed. Unless the bees are burrowing into the ground to reach the treated seed, they theoretically should have no exposure at all. The thought is that particulates may still spread through pneumatic planter dust-off, and here in Canada, at least, rules have been implemented to address that.
That is the design, so theoretically, yes. Of course, as I'm sure everyone reading HN knows, even the best engineered plans can have unforeseen problems. The research I am familiar with indicates the treatment does not make it to the pollen, which means, if the bees are being exposed, it is most likely through some other mechanism. That is why the planting machinery is the prime suspect, and the early results from the aforementioned rule changes here in Canada do look promising, although it is probably too soon to reach any formal conclusions.
The issue is not coming up with an explanation that makes sense. The issue is coming up with an explanation that actually explains as much of the data as possible.
98 pesticides found in bee pollen! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290
and from Wikipedia:
Glyphosate can harm the bacterial ecology of soil and cause micronutrient deficiencies in plants.[63] Other studies found that while "recommended dosages of glyphosate did not affect growth rates", much higher dosages reduced respiration in nitrogen-fixing bacteria.[64][65]
"The 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and adult food of this primary pollinator. "
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Like all agriculture, bee keeping is driven by costs and benefits. As a standard procedure and just as an example, bee-keeper remove most honey and feed their bees on corn syrup [1] - this weakens the hive but not necessarily enough to enough to kill it and it makes money for the bee keepers. You can imagine there are many related variables in this. How much the bees are exposed to pesticides is likely one of these variables.
It's cost effect to keep hives at the edge of survival - until whatever the next bug is appears and remedial must be taken. These work 'till something else comes along.
Maybe "colony collapse" is mysterious but overall situation is pretty clear, just The Jungle applied to bees [1].
[1] http://phys.org/news/2013-04-high-fructose-corn-syrup-tied-w... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle
The feeding on corn syrup is generally due to the fact that the bees are feeding on a monoculture. When the bees are pollinating a crop, there is NO other crop around for miles. The corn syrup with additives is an attempt to buttress any dietary deficiencies.
In any of those cases, is a monoculture really more secure? Or just easier to maintain long enough to retire and hope the whole thing doesn't collapse?
Sexual reproduction mixes up the genes and so the rare combination of genes that gives a much higher yield, is unlikely to occur again. This isn't an insignificant effect either, sometimes the offspring only produce a fraction of the yield of the highly fit parents.
It has nothing to do with corporate actors. This has been going on for over a century by private farmers and government university breeding programs. And we can produce a lot more food a lot cheaper because of it.
Not all is lost though. As our genetic technology improves, we will be able to deal with these issues better.
Their diversity and therefore robustness was also reduced because of excessive breeding to maximum profit for men.
Also their honey is their medicine and food and is taken away and substituted with a poor sugar water substitution.
I think as a rule of thumb, things don't happen because of multiple reasons.
If someone tells you this is great because of X, Y, Z chances are Y and Z are made up to make the argument.
80/20 rule. There's always a main reason for things, the other stuff is just fluff that really doesn't matter.
This is different to cause and effect, once you destroy a habitat you create a new order of things for an animal. Then disease might turn into the 80%.
Mario Bunge gave the following example in his book "Causality and Modern Science": even in a simple system like a wire connected to a battery it is not accurate to say "the battery causes the increase in charge in the wire". The increase is determined by the interaction between the battery and the resistance property of the wire, it cannot be explained by the battery alone. A different wire might not have any charge at all. Thinking in this way about a system as complex as bee populations, the probability of multiple causation seems very high indeed.
-- Anyway, important issue. Shouldnt have to wait for test results from europe...