Talk:Colony Collapse Disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Colony Collapse Disorder has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 15, 2007.
June 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Beekeeping task force. (rated as Mid importance)
Assessment comments
To-do list for Colony Collapse Disorder: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Cleanup: Middle sections, much too technically worded and turgid
Colony Collapse Disorder is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Prevalence, incidence statistics, SOMETHING

There seems to be a pretty glaring lack of anything resembling a first-order measurement of the phenomenon. Doesn't anyone have a link to by-state incidence or prevalence? I mean something like: http://www.ento.psu.edu/MAAREC/pressReleases/CCDMap07FebRev1-.jpg except quantitative. Jim Bowery 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting, as are many other bee scientists, for just such an analysis to appear. It's starting to look like it may be a long time, if ever, before anyone can give any hard figures, rather than just anecdotes from beekeepers. That's one reason a lot of us think this has been over-publicized; science does not come to conclusions without having the data in hand first. If any numbers come to light, then they should certainly get included in the article, as appropriate. In theory, though, if MAAREC doesn't release the figures, no one will. Dyanega 18:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed cause of decline

I've pulled the following sentence from the second paragraph of the article because it gives the false impression that the entire decline from 1971 to the present has been a result of this mysterious CCD. That is plainly untrue. The vast majority of the decline happened for known reasons including the urbanization of former farmland, pesticide kills, aging out of the beekeepers and mostly the one-two punch of tracheal and varroa mites in the 80s and 90s.

The second part of the sentence asserts that the rate of attrition spiked up in 2006. And in fairness, the U Penn article does make that claim. However, that assertion has not yet been confirmed. Even on BEE-L (a moderated discussion of bee researchers), it is treated as anecdotal evidence only. A working group has been developed to attempt to confirm the claim but so far they are still sorting out the definition of a colony collapse. It is premature to present this in an encyclopedia article in a way that a reader would believe that it was confirmed fact. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

From 1971 to 2006 approximately one half of the U.S. honey-bee colonies have vanished, but the rate of attrition reached new proportions in the year 2006, which were alarming to many farmers and honey-bee scientists.[1]


[edit] Experiment

I did a revealing experiment about 15 years ago. I had been using frames of honey from deadout colonies (in the north) to make up nucs, placing the honey next to the brood for feed for the tiny colonies. When a number of the nucs did poorly, I experimented with them by sorting out frames with an abundance of pollen, and placing them next to young queens that were vigorously laying with a good brood pattern. Within two to three days I observed the previously open brood became spotty, which I lay to toxin in the pollen, possibly from molds, but more likely from stored pesticides from an earlier hit. The pollen caused the death of larvae, which were then removed by the workers. I changed my management practices to sort out and disgard any frames with significant amounts of pollen. With this change, I saw little loss.

It is my observation that a strong colony that sustains a pesticide hit, especially in late season, may appear to recover and do well, only to die during the winter. I suspect that the contaminated pollen is covered by fresh clean pollen during the fall bloom, only to be opened again during winter when the bees are more vulnerable.

Another thing that needs more attention. Some of the modern pesticides appear not to be very toxic to bees, yet they somehow damage the social interaction, leading to slow attrition and death of the colony. Beekeepers may not attribute the death correctly due to the time span involved. I'm not putting this into the article, as it is personal research, but I'd love to see some of the contemporary researchers considering it seriously and working on these angles. Pollinator 05:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I can imagine that if some natural or manmade chemical had only a very subtle effect, it might take quite a while to identify it and understand it. And this might be what is going on here.--Filll 14:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is wrong with this sentence?

Limited occurrences resembling CCD have been documented as early as 1896,[2] but only recently has the vast destructive scale emerged.

It was edited out.--Filll 13:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

--It looks like this sentence is at the begining and end of the paragraph in which it occurs. David_Eagan

there is nothing wrong with this sentence; it should remain in for time perspective. if anyone wants to tweak it, have a go. i havent seen an edit version with it duplicated, but clearly it shouldnt be repeated. cheers Anlace 03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed content

I've removed the paragraph below from the Possible Causes section. It's all true but is has no apparent connection with the topic at hand. The observation that pesticides are toxic is not particularly new. These specific pesticides may or may not be involved in CCD. Without evidence linking these specific pesticides (and so far there is none), this paragraph is not relevant to this page. Rossami (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The completed review of chief pesticides used on apples, blueberries, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears and plums (many fruits pollinated by honey-bees) was last announced on January 17, 2007 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Citing general environmental protection and farmworker safety, the EPA announced the tightening of use or phaseout of the highly toxic pesticides phosmet and Azinphos methyl. Under these rule changes, continued use of these organophosphate pesticide would be allowed for five years but under somewhat reduced dosage limits;[3] however, most of the provisions of this rule change were designed for more stringent protection of workers rather than the environmental protection. These EPA rules would not come into complete effect until the year 2012, although some aspects of protection would begin at once.

[edit] Europe

Is anything like this happening in Europe or Asia?

Not now, evidently, and - as far as I am aware - not in the past (during all the previous appearances of this syndrome over the last 40 years). That is one reason so many people suspect it is related to beekeeping practices or pesticides; both are quite different in the United States. About the only thing in common among ALL of the times this phenomenon has been reported over the years is poor foraging conditions prior to the die-off; then again, some people are now claiming that this is not the same thing we've seen in the past, so the jury is still out. It also does seem a little odd that only US bees should be experiencing this sort of stress, ever, but then again, the majority of bees kept elsewhere are generally treated a little better (in terms of disruption, especially). Occam's Razor, at this point, would suggest that the entire syndrome is due to stress, and since stress can have many causes, and can lead to various illnesses, people are struggling to find patterns that may simply not really be there. Dyanega 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you so sure? The Register reports Colony Collapse Disorder in Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, and Spain: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/02/colony_collapse_disorder/ Es3225
The media are reporting a lot of things right now. Actual bee researchers are much more cautious in their statements. Rossami (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
France has experienced some heavy dieoffs in the last couple decades. Pesticides are claimed to be the cause, but other synergistic factors may also be involved. Pollinator 22:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to find any reliable reports of "CCD cases" in Germany that are not apparently misidentifications due to crappy mass media reports. Our bees are having a bad time, but that's due to the waeather going haywire; April was like June but without the rain this year over here. Dysmorodrepanis 10:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"CCD was originally found only in Western honey bee colonies in North America,[1] but European beekeepers have recently claimed to be observing a similar phenomenon in Poland, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Initial reports have also come in from Switzerland and Germany, albeit to a lesser degree." right in the intro; I changed that. I have checked the refs, and there is no positive evidence that these cases show CCD symptoms whatsoever. European beekeepers have been observing some above-average losses, but I have yet to see any report from outside NAm that mentions the telltale signs of CCD. Check the Quebec case where they do: the press releases contain mention of "deserted" colonies, undepleted food stocks, lack of parasites, loss of one-quarter and up up up of stocks in affected areas. Nothing like this from Europe yet, fortunately. Indeed, the introduction contradicts later reports. Dysmorodrepanis 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Just double-checked the German WP which doesn't even mention supposed cases in Germany specifically. Dysmorodrepanis 14:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent decline in North America

I see the CCD is something that has appears to have existed for decades. I'm interested in catering to people specifically interested in the recent disappearance of 2007. I think that this article is very well researched and sourced, but I'm not seeing the recent spike very well represented in this article. For now, I'm going to make North American bee disappearance of 2007. The two can always be merged at some point, when more data is out about the recent spike.Yeago 19:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's no actual hard evidence that there really is a recent "disappearance" of bees. The March 2007 issue of BeeCulture magazine (page 16) includes a survey of winter losses. The losses are reported to be about the same as last year. Rossami (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have restructured the introduction to highlight the recent developments that prompted the naming of the syndrome - for now, as Rossami points out, the "spike" is not based on evidence, only anecdote, so the use of the word "alleged" is still appropriate. Dyanega 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar problems seem to appear in Canada (Quebec), too. Here are two articles (in French) on Radio Canada, and Cyberpresse, a Press Site. Quebec UQAM University Professor De Oliveira seems to be a good potential first-hand source. FredT34 21:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

De Oliveira should be contacted. The Cyberpresse article is very intriguing, it mentions 2 factors (>>10% winter loss and lack of parasites in affected hives) which scream out CCD. It's actually the first piece I have seen that mentions the diagnostic criteria for CCD as present in supposed cases abroads. Yet, they might have simply picked the info up from somewhere (like Wikipedia ;-) ). Of course, geography and all... I thought 2 days ago "when are we getting good data from Canada?" and lo and behold.
So we should try and get a fix on whether the Cyberpresse article is an accurate description of what happens in Quebec, or whether the CCD symptoms are "retconned" onto that. The scale alone suggests strongly that it's the same thing as in the US (compare to Europe's supposed "CCD cases", which is really a 40% or so reduction in hive numbers over a period of nearly a decade. Bad Times for Bees, but not CCD. Dysmorodrepanis 01:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't feel these articles were just other CCD-mania papers - they don't mention 'CCD' that much. I'm volunteer to try to email-reach both the journalist, to get sources, and De Oliveira - perhaps it would be a good thing to prepare some questions on this page... (including bidirectional translation...) Anyway, it seems that the spring (and CCD ?) reached Canada together. Right now I can think about these questions (please feel free to add yours!)
- when did this begin in Canada - which symptoms have been observed - how many hives are affected so far - any official organism coordinating research efforts - any pan-(north?)-american coordination ? FredT34 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Basis for any CCD diagnoses that might have been taken (eg were the criteria herein applied or what? An interesting read that paper BTW). These articles 'ring' very different from the rest to me too. Many thanks for your help! Dysmorodrepanis 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point removed

Although sourced, I've removed this sentence "* Presence of capped brood in colonies." from the list of symptoms of colony collapse being imminent. It's clear from sources all over the internet (and by looking in a colony, though that would violate WP:OR), that capped brood is present in all healthy colonies through most of the year, being the final stage of pupal development for the bee. Looking for input from others here - the source says what I've removed ad verbatim, but it could plasibly be a typo, or a cause not fully qualified (perhaps it colony collapse is characterised by a lack of capped brood (though this is normal during some parts of the year) or only capped brood (again, normal towards the tail end of the season)). What do you think? Martinp23 20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The source itself says the capped brood may be an indicator of CCD causing the death of a colony in an already dead one, however this condition (of death having happened already) isn't portrayed effectively in the article (to me, at least). Martinp23 20:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added it back though I think we still need to write the paragraph to make the real indicators clear. The underlying issue is that honeybees will almost never abandon a hive which has capped brood in place. If the colony is starving (such as at the end of winter), the adult bees will cannibalize first the eggs then the brood in an attempt to sustain enough nurse bees to revive the colony when the winter breaks. They won't abandon the colony with resources still in place. If the colony is dying of other factors, the adult bees will stay to the end attempting to raise new bees either to revive the colony or to support a new swarm. The fact that the adult bees are gone but the baby bees remain is one of the key differentiators alleged between CCD and "normal" colony death. Rossami (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Found the problem. Our article said "any of the symptoms". In fact, a colony requires all of the symptoms be categorized as a CCD candidate. Whoever drafted the paragraph misread the source. It's fixed now. Rossami (talk)

[edit] CCD and related phenomena

Blue Tie recently reverted my addition of Decline in amphibian populations from the CCD article. I understand his/her reason for doing so, as it is obviously correct that amphibians are rather unrelated to honeybees -- and indeed the phenomenon of amphibian declines is in all likelihood wholly unconnected to CCD. At the same time these are broadly analogous phenomena and as such, I think the amphibian article may be of interest to certain readers of the CCD article -- indeed, serendipitous cross-fertilization (metaphorically speaking of course) is often illuminating to the scientific endeavor. I sitll argue that putting it there is perfectly appropriate, but at the very least another solution would be to create a new section on "Other related phenomena" (i.e. "related" does not imply causality, but merely a reference to its topical similarity). The thoughts of others on this are encouraged. Cheers, Arjuna 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about linking each to the other under a "see also" section and annotating it with "a mass dieoff of bees/amphibians that does not seem to be causally related"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Existence confirmed?

The article currently includes the sentence "The cause of the syndrome is not yet well understood and even the existence of this disorder remains disputed." Several editors have attempted to remove that sentence claiming that "the time for denial is past". Denial has nothing to do with scientific fact. The existence of this disorder as a separate and discreted malady remains unproven to date and is still the subject of vigorous debate among bee researchers.

Several people have requested citations for the dispute. Footnoting has never been my forte but here are a few sources that I know about:

  • Dr J Ellis (keynote speaker) in comments made at the 2007 Tri-County Beekeepers Association Seminars (as reported by K Flottum)
  • BEE-L discussion forum (a moderated discussion by bee researchers)
  • Winter loss statistics reported in the Mar 2007 BeeCulture magazine (p 16)

Few of these people are saying that CCD definitely does not exist, merely that it remains in question and that we ought not to rush to judgment. Personally, I like Dr J Tew's comment (in the Feb 2007 Ohio Info Bee newsletter) that "The numerous general symptoms combined with the broad timeframe become encompassing enough to include nearly any dead colony."

It might be real - or it might be hysteria over higher than average but still normal winter losses. Our article needs to reflect what remains unknown as well as what is known. Rossami (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To this list you can add several radio, TV, and newspaper appearances/quotations of California's leading apicultural scientist, Eric Mussen of UC Davis, who also has not yet accepted the claims either that this is a disease, or that it is new, and has emphasized the role of stress on colony survival. For the most part, it appears that the beekeepers are ready and willing to accept the claims of it being a disease, but the scientists are not. There is a fundamental problem here, after all; it is rather difficult to scientifically evaluate a phenomenon that has already occurred - how do you run an experiment to test your hypothesis (short of using a time machine)? In such cases, one looks for correlations of factors before and after, and in the present case, the most prominent correlation is the one to stress. Dyanega 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The scientific issue is probably centered on the fact that this is a syndrome. Hence the name-change from "Fall Dwindling Disease" to CCD. This may get people confused (e.g. journalists) who don't understand the difference between a disease and a syndrome. They're likely to take the scientific opinion to mean, wrongly, that CCD "doesn't exist". (Compare AIDS, which is not a "disease" but a fatal condition caused by whatever disease or parasite is common at the particular time and place. In Russia, many AIDS victims die of TB. In the US, many die of PCP. In Africa and Asia, many die of malaria. And so on. A disease needs a known direct causative agent (the disease caused by HIV is not AIDS, but Th4+ leukopenia for example). A syndrome only needs to be a distinct phenotypical entity, which CCD is: a catastrophic collapse of colony integrity with no observable mass mortality in-hive. Note there needs to be no information on scale, or since when it has occurred. It might even always have been there and simply been overlooked for the phenomenon itself (as outlined in the "Symptoms" section) to be a unique and distinct condition.
As there are streamlined diagnostic criteria, the assumption that "CCD doesn't exist" seems to have about as much merit among the scientists concerned as the theory that "AIDS doesn't exist". That is to say, it's a possibly mentionable fringe opinion, but a fringe opinion nonetheless. "CCD is not a disease" is a scientifically possible claim, as of yet. AIDS, for example, is not a disease strictly speaking: it is the consequences of some disease (like maybe pleuritis) stacked on top of another (Th4+ leukopenia), hence the "S" (for "syndrome") in AIDS. The CCD phenomenon cannot be explained by any bee disease known to science. The rest is simply misreading or -understanding the difference between a causative and a descriptive analysis: the latter - required to define a "syndrome" - is done for CCD, the former - required to define a "disease" - is ongoing but no results yet. Dysmorodrepanis 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poisonous plants

What's the use of this paragraph? These plants have been around since Hector was a pup. If there is reason to suspect that they are involved in CCD, there should be a sentence to explain why they might have waited several hundred years before causing such havoc.--Cancun771 07:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You need not be so skeptical, I think. I have added a statement to clarify the closing sentence, which had been intended to address precisely that point. Further, there is no evidence that CCD has NOT been around for hundreds of years - as you will note, there are records going back to the 1890's. Dyanega 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GM crops

I suggest that this speculation be removed. The likelihood seems denied within its paragraph.Doug Huffman 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several of the theories regarding CCD which run counter to the evidence; nonetheless, the fact remains that people have proposed them, so they DO bear mention here - as does the evidence that supports or refutes the various theories! That's an integral part of a balanced presentation of a topic. Dyanega 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There is also, however, a limit to how speculative the presentation here should be; a few of the recent edits to the section on GM crops have taken this to an extreme, and cannot be supported; no one has ever shown that honey bees afflicted with CCD are gathering pollen from GM corn. In fact, the German study cited actively fed corn pollen to bees, so even in this case, the situation is artificial. Having read the cited work, it is also significant that healthy honey bee colonies were not affected adversely by Bt pollen, and thus the editor has not given a balanced representation, and I intend to include an appropriate quote in the article. Dyanega 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
To editor Josef09: your recent edit inserted the following text: "So there seems to be a coicidence with the German results at the level of special experiments with Bt maize and priliminary CCD findings [4]" There is nothing in that reference that links CCD in the US to Bt pollen - this connection appears to be something that you, yourself, are proposing, and thus would fall under WP:NOR provisions. If you can find a researcher who has evidence that the bee die-off in the US is in any way related to Bt crops, then by all means, provide a citation. If, on the other hand, this is speculation (i.e., no evidence) but from a known source, then it can still be cited, but it needs to be noted that the claim is speculative. I have responded to your comments on my user page there. Dyanega 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It is worth noting here that the quote you attribute to Hackenberg is unverifiable, and does not indicate what spatial scale he was referring to - Pennsylvania alone, or a larger area. I further note that the list "corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" is not composed solely of plants that have commercially-developed Bt-containing strains, as you imply. I am aware of corn and cotton (the latter is not used for pollen by honey bees), and that there are experimental (as opposed to commercial) versions of soybeans, canola, and sunflowers, but I am unaware of apples, vine crops and pumpkins modified to contain Bt genes - so your closing phrase "Thus most of the commercially grown Bt plants seem to be included" is somewhat misleading. Especially if the only "commercially grown Bt plants" in the US are corn, cotton, and tobacco. Dyanega 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
to the editor Dyanega: I think your changes are o.k. And it is good, you checked it over.
Bees use corn in tassel as a source of nectar. Pollen is collected opportunistically to a minor extent. Dysmorodrepanis 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad: fall under WP:NOR provisions: I think you realized that it is the first time I work on wikipedia. And I got the feeling may be you are right.

Ad letter of David Hackenberg: I placed it in my talk talk:Josef09. I didn't find the letter and the quotation in the www. The concerning paragraph is: "Even though the problem is wide spread across the USA not all beekeepers have been affected yet. That is a key piece of information in solving the puzzle.

Beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins. So what is it about these crops that are killing the bees?? In the last three years what changed about the growing practices that would have this affect. Initially beekeepers discounted the possibility of pesticide damage because there is no sign of dead or dying bees when bees are working around these plants. Also in the past it was accepted that soybeans and cotton were good crops to produce honey and corn was an excellent source of pollen when in tassel and pollinating apples, vine crops and pumpkins other than causing stress and queen loss from moving bees so many times was acceptable. Bees were not dying in the summer while these crops are blooming but rather several months later in the late fall and early winter. During the fall and winter of 2004 and 2005 there were similar die-offs in mid-western states. This year the die-off has spread more across the country and there are much larger losses.

In conversation with farmers, growers and seed and spray company representatives we have learned that there has been a big change in pesticides used to treat these crops." (And then he comes to his favourite theory of neonicotinoids and CCD.) (The adress of David Hackenberg is also included in this letter. You could try to contact him, but, I think, it is hard to do it just now.)

He also talks about the fact that "corn was an excellent source of pollen when in tassel" - which all the beekeepers working near corn know. (Usually my uncle said: Look, those lasy bees go the easy ways and take in the heavy maize pollen.) Thus, if you want, you could change also the first paragraph of the "GMOs"

[edit] More contradictions

In the German article it says that representatives of the German beekeepers' association stated in a parliamentary hearing that the Bt toxin DOES affect adult bees by damaging their GI tract. The statement appears to be fully referenced.

[edit] Contradictions?

Well this is what the German Beekeeper Association may say in an article,

No, it was testimony in front of the Bundestag.--Cancun771 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

but they know quite good that it may only be one of the causes. (If somebody reads German, look Beekeepers against GMOs in honey and German Beekeeper Association - GMOs threaten bees)

It is still the opposite of what it says in this wiki (namely that adult bees are NOT harmed by Bt toxin but larvae are). If one side claims one thing and the other its opposite, then this is usually termed a contradiction. And if the German beekeepers are right, Bt toxin CAN be related to CCD, but if they are wrong, it CANNOT.--Cancun771 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is the best knowledge available in the public domain concerning this subject --- and it is hard to evaluate it objectively in the whole context.

The letter of David Hackenberg is not yet on the www, but it is a public letter. It is placed now in talk:Josef09, but if somebody wants to place it in the www or on his/her homepage and link it - it is o.k. It is a very good source, because it is really primary information.

Then actual there is also a page from the Sierra Club on the web with a letter to Senator Thomas Harkin: Disorder -- science needed! This letter includes some important references concerning GMOs, Bt crops and bees, which may support the link between GMOs and CCD. It would be good that somebody with English mother tongue and wikipedia-expierence re-checks this on the main page. --bogobogo 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

to the editor Cancun771: I looked up your reference - and you are right (Official comments of the German Beekeeper Federation in the German Bundestag). It talks about the fact, that it may be the adult bees first which are affected. I was looking for something like this reference in English yesterday, but could not find anything.

Then the summaries of the US risk assessment of Bt and the relation to honeybees are on the EPA homepage for Biopesticides Registration Action Documents concerning the environmental effects of Bacillus thuringiensis as plant incorporated protectants. Here you can see the very short summaries of the studies made in connection with corn (maize). But the studies as such, do not seem to be in the public domain. (or does somebody have or know the studies like MRID 453371-02, MRID 450863-07, MRID 434392-02, MRID 434392-03, MRID 450415-03, MRID 453078-05 (suplement), MRID 429322-09, MRID 429322-10) Only two European studies in relation to bees are cited (EcoStrat 2000 - which is from Hilbeck et al. - and the other is: Schur et al. 2000). Thus it cannot be re-checked, how these studies were conducted. And everybody can see that there are only very few studies on adult honeybees available (3 are cited and one failed).

Some actual re-evalutions are in the "biopesticide registration action document" Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F Corn - Updated August 2005.

For cotton you find some words in the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production in Cotton (006487)- Fact Sheet. There are also some other Fact sheets where EPA makes some short sentences on honeybees, but these sentences are nearly all the time the same.

It is highly interesting how the tests on adult bees were made. These tests were usually made according to "Honey bee testing Tier I" (Microbial Pesticide Test Guidelines - OPPTS 885.4380- Honey Bee Testing - Tier I). And here again it is interesting that such tests have a rather short duration time ("Control and treated bees should be observed for at least 30 days after dosing."). So there is a lot around the Bt-crops and their potential effect on honeybees questionable. If somebody wants to change the article according to these sources, then it would be great (native speaker and wikipedia-expert needed.) But we should be careful, and should not give the article a Pro- ar Anti-GMO drive. It is Wikipedia.--bogobogo 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The public letter to the US growers from David Hackenberg (now in talk:Josef09) will be published on a homepage in the near future.bogobogo 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

m →Genetically modified crops (GMO) ( Link to the Publication "Status of Pollinators in North America" of the National Research Council" and the exact citations introduced.) "Decline of polinators" seems to be a known problem for years and allready discussed. Why has there been no link to this publication till now??? 81.223.24.208 11:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Letter is now www-on-line: at Plattform Imkerinnen - Austria - News

, also in German bogobogo 08:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

to the editor Cancun771 and to the editor Dyanega: "Tobacco" has been dropped (I didn't find any document discussing ccd in connection with Bt tobacco) and the connections and links to the risk assessment fact sheets of EPA have been included. Is it better now???? I dropped some of the "contradictions". Please, re-check it. All the last editions (except one) have been made by.... --bogobogo 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The GM section is almost unreadable. It needs to be fixed. --Blue Tie 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix a littel. I am not native speaking. However, I am against dropping content. But if somebody wants to fix it, o.k., will have a look at it and the NPOV. bogobogo 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not much mention beyond corn or cotton in regards to GMO exposure. There are other pollen/nectar heavy plants attractive to bees which have been genetically modified and may be loose in the environment. Has anybody considered alfalfa? It's pervasive and can be found all over the U.S. 71.194.160.54 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no Bt toxin in GM alfalfa, to my knowledge, therefore it is irrelevant to the present issue. This article is about honey bees dying, and NOT about the politics of GM crops. Dyanega 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetically modified crops (GMO): I just added, concerning the feeding habits, nearly the same as in the pesticides chapter. I think it is clear that we cannot have two opinions on the facts how bees are feeding and what the following causual interactions with certain substances may be. And I added the actual discussion with actual which is going on.bogobogo 14:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This was the state of 20 March before I started to edit "Genetically modified crops Potential effects of gathering pollen and nectar from genetically modified (GM) crops that produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin have not been investigated in great detail, but the primary crops involved (corn, and tobacco) are not preferred plants for honey bees (if they visit the plants, they typically do so when there is no other food available; they will gather only pollen from corn, and rarely visit tobacco blossoms). Cotton is highly subject to bee visitation for nectar, but there is little evidence of toxicity of GM cotton, other than that from insecticides used during bloom. Furthermore, the primary effect of Bt on insects is on larvae, whereas the CCD phenomenon involves the disappearance of the adult bees. However, one researcher in Germany has suggested that exposure to Bt toxin disrupts the ability of adult honey bees to fend off common pathogens like Nosema apis by damaging the intestinal lining[citation needed]. Most significantly, however, the vast majority of the colonies reported to be dying from CCD are in locations where these crops are not grown (at least in the United States), meaning that even if GM crops are involved, it could only account for a very small number of cases of CCD. Therefore it is unlikely the syndrome, as a whole, is in any way related to GM crops." - somebody of the edotors seems to be unable to change his theories ---Look up all the history ----- All the other links and facts have been edited by me - and I am not happy with co-editors all the time twisting facts and meanings of citations around to make it pro GM and arranged in such a way that industry which reponsible for all the peticides i sall the time well off. The arguments to be "Anti-GM" or "Anti-chemicals" is not an acceptable argument.bogobogo 12:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are hung up on completely anecdotal information - Hackenberg's personal opinion about what crops some unknown set of beekeepers have been keeping their bees near, and extrapolating from there to arrive at an unjustified conclusion; that there is Bt pollen causing bees to die from Nosema infections, and that this is behind CCD. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this is the case, and, furthermore, this is not even Hackenberg's opinion. The factor that all these crops have in common, according to Hackenberg, is that they are all treated with neonicotinoid pesticides. Just because two of the plants on the list MIGHT contain Bt toxin in SOME areas is such a tentative and speculative connection that it honestly does not belong in this article. The evidence argues very strongly against this hypothesis, especially as the only potentially negative effect of Bt pollen hinges upon the bees ALSO having Nosema infections, and this is simply not what the researchers and beekeepers have observed. Do you know of any citations showing significant Nosema infections in CCD-affected colonies other than Hackenberg's personal colonies in Pennsylvania? If so, then include them as evidence supporting the possible connection. In the absence of such citations, Hackenberg is a single positive data point in a sea of negative data points. It has nothing to do with me changing or not changing my theories - none of these are my theories! If the bees that are dying are not being exposed to Bt pollen, and are not infected by Nosema, then the theory that Bt pollen is responsible for weakening bees cannot explain CCD; that is not theorizing, it is observing that the theory is incompatible with the evidence, and stating it plainly in the article so readers know that it is an unsupported theory.
First it is not my theory, because it is exactly what was written in the section on pesticides: "... many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively, meaning that there may be a delay of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred." (Look to the pesticides section) You just have to change pesticides with "crops" and/or "breeds". And your arguments, that beekeepers see "tassels" but not "pesticides" so there must be a difference, is not an argument at all, because the beekeepers didn't know till now that the tassels could be dangerous or could include a bee threatening substance - This is not my theory but it is obvious that bees were feeding to some extend Bt pollen from maize and nectar from Bt-cotton. Hackenberg stated that - and he is the only one who talked about the facts what the bees were feeding on: "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" - I do not interpret Hackenberg - and he may have his own theories and they may be justified. Kill Hackenberg if you want from this page - but he is the only reliable source on ccd bees feeding - and he for sure is a main "secondary source".

.bogobogo

You cannot simply substitute the word "pollen" for "pesticides"! They are DIFFERENT phenomena! A pollen grain can be examined and identified, so a beekeeper can tell what plant it came from; they cannot do the same for a pesticide contaminant. Long-term storage does not interfere with a beekeeper's ability to trace a pollen source, and it DOES interfere with their ability to trace a pesticide source. They are DIFFERENT. It is plainly and explicitly your theory that these bees have collected Bt corn - you SPECIFICALLY offer the opinion above that "it is obvious that bees were feeding to some extend Bt pollen from maize and nectar from Bt-cotton" - that is a THEORY - unsupported, personal, and a violation of WP:NOR. It is NOT verifiable, in any sense, and you cannot include it here! Read the editing window on your computer: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". I cannot possibly be more clear about this, and you risk being blocked from editing if you persist in violating WP policy this way! I have not removed Hackenberg from the page because he is one of the leading proponents of the theory that imidacloprid is responsible for CCD. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
First I have to excuse: I did not find your comments till yesterday night. (I never made a secret that I am no wiki-professional and I am not native speaking.) I found your "sock puppets" insulting and thats the reason why I went on.
Second: You are only a little bit right, if somebody would look into the ccd hives and tell what kind of pollen is in there. But the beekeepers never looked at the pollen or the different plants as beeing subtoxic or subletal - and for sure they will do it in the future. But Bt is a pesticide (it has been authorized as such, as "plant incorporated protectant") and nearly nobody looked at it (who traced its pollen sources - and who is publishing what? )- You are right, if you know that there could be something with the pollen, you could find out easier the "systemic" pesticide Bt - as a scientist with laboratories (Where are the laboratories? who traced it back to the pollen?). And with pollen there are simalarities with systemic pesticides like imidacloprid. But this analysis did not happen and it seems it does not happen. There is nothing out there except the statement of Hackenberg and also the suspicions of some other beekeepers. (I do not interpret Hackenberg - I take him as main "secondary source"). Now as long as nobody publishes what ccd bees were feeding on, the only evidence of interaction is the likelihood of plantings. Everything in science is a theory - and if you think it is a theory that bees in the US like cotton and also take corn pollen, when in tassels, than take it as such, but the opposite theory that bees do not do it and/or do only feed on Non-Bt-cotton and Non-Bt-maize is quite courious - if this is a violation on WP:NOR ? (For the simple things you do not find sources easy) - Some likelihoods and some facts you have to take for granted, even if they have not been proofed scientifically or are ad hoc "verifyable" - it was me who brought in that bees can feed on maize pollen, because I have seen it on my own as a child - but it was quite a hard job to "verify" it for wikipedia. bogobogo 05:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
And now "Nosema", I never pushed this theory, that there is "the cause of CCD", but it is interesting that out od 7 samples 4 had "Nosema", and this is the only primary research on CCD bees in the public domain (and the report still is called "preliminary", but it is the only one). You can say it is too small and so on - but you do not have evidences that there is better information (or you should write it in). You are not allowed to count all other states, where there was no research on CCD bees, against the Nosema bees in PA. Your argument on the corn-states not affected are o.k. - DID I kill your statements? --- No, I did not..bogobogo
The only documented connection between Bt crops and honey bee health is the single German study which indicates that bees with Nosema infections are more likely to die when fed Bt pollen. That is the paragraph into which you have been trying to force your edit, and the context in which your theory has been presented. Therefore, the only verifiable theory involved here is that Bt affects colonies by exacerbating Nosema infections; any other suggested links are personal theories. At present, every other published study and review indicates that Bt pollen is not lethal to honey bees. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You mix up on lethal andd toxic and some other chronic, sublethal and subtoxic effects. Additionally, the real studies - if you study them are so thin and small. Have you seen the EPA-studies and their peer review? ("summary" is a euphemism - You just find one sentence out there - the industries themselves made or ordered the studies a.s.o. - but you cannot "verfy" anything with them.) And the studies on Bt and adult honeybees with long term monitoring, I did not find - but I am open for additional literature.bogobogo 06:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I will further note that your repeated insistence on inserting the comment about pollen being placed into storage is being removed - and will continue to be removed - because it is simply NOT the same situation as with systemic pesticides, and is not relevant to whether or not the theory regarding damaging effects of Bt is valid. The point about systemic pesticides is that beekeepers cannot see that they are there. Because they cannot see that they are there, there is no way for a beekeeper to associate any colony deaths with the insecticide even if they later find evidence of contamination in the colony - it is this latter point that makes the long-term storage of honey/pollen significant in this context - because the contaminated pollen/honey cannot be traced to a specific source, and because a time delay before symptoms appear might mislead the beekeepers (that is, they would fail to correctly associate the appearance of symptoms with the area in which the exposure occurred). In the case of Bt pollen, a beekeeper CAN see if they are keeping their colonies near a corn field, so if they were to notice colony deaths later, then unless they were memory-impaired, they would still be able to trace the source of the problem ("Hmm. Maybe they picked up bad pollen from that corn last month?") - so the long-term storage effect would not make any difference in this context - the beekeepers would not be misled, since they would know that their colonies had been exposed to corn (in contrast to them NOT knowing that their bees had been exposed to systemic insecticides). Remember - please - that this portion of this article deals with the evidence supporting or refuting the different theories; the phenomenon of long-term storage is relevant to theories that pesticides may be involved, because the evidence includes what the beekeepers are able to observe (you can't rule pesticides out just because they were not observed, DUE TO the potential for long-term storage); it is far less relevant (if relevant at all) to the theory that Bt corn pollen may be involved, because Bt corn CAN be ruled out if beekeepers are not reporting that they kept their hives near Bt corn, regardless of whether the pollen is in long-term storage. Dyanega 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that Bt is also some sort of systemic: there is an extremely high production of ~Cry1A-toxin per hectare Cry1A-toxin in some varieties was 1500-2000 times higher than the threshold for the treatment of one hectare crop with natural Bt-product DIPEL???) Who saw this systemic growth?.bogobogo
And nobody was talking about direct toxic effects (I did not say all those toxic studies are wrong - the suggestion is that that nobody looked at the subtoxic - at the subletal levels and a.s.o.81.223.24.208 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).bogobogo I will come later back to this.
If no one has looked at it, then you could not include it in the article! The only thing you could state in the article in such a case is "No one has documented subtoxic effects" - and that is not true! The article already cites the existence of sublethal effects, in the sentence "in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens." The point remains that no one has yet demonstrated a link between Bt and CCD, and there are verifiable sources that explictly state the contrary. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
well, which links have been demonstrated between the potential causes and ccd (Tell me!). The whole "CCD" is one theory (it is real funny how the world is reconstructed through the definition of a new decease) and all the causes connected are theories and within the possible causes are theories and nearly all the theories have contradictions (it is a patchwork of theories and of some incidental research (usually not from authorities) - and if it comes to "pollinator decline" you meet similar theories. I did not say, I have the link demonstrated. You wrote what speaks against this link, and I cited what speaks for this link (so I did not drop your sentences). I am not able to demonstrate other things. For sure , I stop now. I brought in my best knowledge- and I think it made wikipedia better. -But I have litmited resources - especially time. Lets thanks for your patience as WIKI-Professional - but for sure I still do not understand all your arguments fully, but they are good constructed - (sorry I didn't find your comments earlier - I really was looking for them - and for sure, I did not want to be your "sock puppet" - its the first time, I have found out what you mean, and that it is not a direct insult. But as long as the CCD WG does not publish more, and the beekeepers keep more or less silent - and they have also their reasons why - we have got a German phrase which says, "this all is a discussion on the emperer's beard" - well wait till he gets shaved.) bogobogo 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] scale of disorder

to the editors: Please use right citations: In the reference/link 29: Sueddeutsche Zeitung - There you do not find "Turkey" oder "Türkei" (it looks as if somebody wants to make a bad joke - and that is not good for wikipedia and not good for the bees either) -- and reference 26 does not work any more. Primary sources are on the page of the CCD Working group. I just added "citation needed" - but will drop it if it is not referenced bogobogo 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sunspots & Dance

Read http://www.synchronizm.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/29/the-bees-who-flew-too-high/ for another theory. --Lollerkeet 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote from WP official policy (in this case, Wikipedia:Fringe theories):
Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. The theory may still be written about and expounded upon in articles devoted to the theory itself or non-scientific contexts.
Accordingly, this "theory" does not merit inclusion in this article, which is most definitely about a mainstream scientific subject, nor did the edit proposed on 3 April 2007 by 24.61.249.54 which mentioned something from an AM radio broadcast about an "ozone hole" theory. Dyanega 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cell phones/Cell Towers/HAARP/GWEN?

Article focuses on HAARP, not mobile phones; lacks geographical correlation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.176.44 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees? zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not disputing anything to do with the theory of cellphones, but that is a shoddy piece of journalism if ever i've seen one. Just look at their use of inaccurate/misquoted statistics and their complete lack of any citations. Someone should notify the editor of the Independent and have them to write a correction to this rampant sensationalism that they've wrapped up as 'Sunday news'. Worse than most bloggers i read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.221.151 (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
It's utter tripe. If this "theory" were true, we'd be seeing massive losses among hobbyist beekeepers (who primarily keep their bees near their houses and near such radiation sources) and almost none among commercial beekeepers (who keep their bees in orchards and other predominantly rural areas). In fact, the pattern is exactly reversed. Essentially all the losses that are being reliably attributed to CCD are being reported from commercial beekeepers and polls of hobbyists report no abnormal loss patterns. That article is an embarrassment to the newspaper. Rossami (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My opinion: even if the cell phone theory is nonsense, it still deserves to be in here. Readers will come here, having seen or heard about the theory, and will be confused as to why it doesn't appear here. The correct approach is not to ignore the theory altogether, but to stick it in along with whatever counter-arguments there are. Korny O'Near 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
PLease read the section amd quote immediately above this one; fringe theories do not merit inclusion simply because someone proposes them. The only thing that could conceivably garner such a theory a place in the article is if a scientific paper comes out specifically refuting it. Dyanega 01:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No one yet knows whether or not the theory has any merit, but it is hardly a "fringe" theory, and regardless of how well-written or not the newspaper article is, it is irresponsible not to make some reference to it in this Wiki-article. Apparently some of the people posting comments here do not understand the scientific process. Confirming or rejecting the theory comes from scientific testing of the hypothesis, not the result of comments by uncredentialed (at least in terms of the Wikisystem) editors here. Leave it in unless and until rejected in publications by qualified scientists. Arjuna 04:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you have that exactly backwards. It is a fringe theory and gets left out of the encyclopedia until it is published by qualified scientists (or becomes independently notorious enough to deserve it's own separate article as a fringe theory). That article does not qualify on either count. And, by the way, there already is cited evidence rebutting this theory. Look up Dr J Bromenshenk's description of the placement of cell phone base stations inside hives with no adverse effect. Rossami (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No sir, I'm afraid it's you who is mistaken. It is an untested hypothesis[5] by a scientist at an accredited, recognized institution. Kudos for finding the Bromenshenk paper, but this is hardly the last word on the subject. And certainly this story, regardless of its eventual merit, is out there and merits mention. It stays. Btw, your credentials for refuting the citation are...? Arjuna 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The hypothesis at least merits investigation. It would be interesting to know if the recorded instances of this syndrome in Europe have occurred in areas in which large numbers of tri-band phones are found. If so it might be interesting to repeat any experiments with transmitters using the bands normally used in N. America. Hopefully this hypothesis can be disproved, but until it is it has to be taken seriously. -- 158.232.2.32 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The page for the German research group under discussion is: http://agbi.uni-landau.de/materialien.htm. Some of the material is in English. This is emphatically not "fringe" or "junk" science. It is careful and legitimate research by qualified scientists. Full stop. Now, the theory that this has anything to do with CCD may well be disproven. My point is only that reference to the hypothesis as one of the theories mentioned in the article is valid. Arjuna 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The one reference in English that appears to be a peer-reviewed publication indicates that the authors are indeed scientists, but hardly "qualified" - they are physicists, not entomologists, and the actual research was performed by students of environmental sciences. The paper presents no statistical analyses and only a cursory discussion of methods. In fact, with a sample size of 4 hives, it doesn't seem likely to give statistically meaningful results. That being said, if you have no objections to the inclusion of appropriate caveats into the article ALONG WITH the citation, then this citation itself (not the blog extrapolations) can be included, and I will do so now. Dyanega 17:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(Not sure to edit this correctly - please feel free to amend - and btw please excuse my poor english) Well I just came on this article again, as I now do almost every day, to find the latest information on this Bees issue - as Wikipedia appears to be the ONLY serious and updated reference on this problem. I specifically came to read about this "cell phone" buzz - and didn't find anything before coming on this Talk page. Quite frustrating... I almost thought you had missed it! So, I understand very well it's not scientifically proven - but I think even this "not proven thing" should appear in the topic, so readers know it's not proven, or is proven to be junk (which I can't decide!). Isn't there a Wikipedia policy for this ("how to write content, even if it's not proved, or even proved to be false")? And even if such a policy doesn't exist... please add a word about cell phones! (FrenchFred) 90.4.171.40 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The study was about DECT Cordless phones, not cell phones. Any "journalist" that did not check his source is guilty of JUNK JOURNALISM. Please continue the thread down below.Kgrr 10:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
At least two of the researchers involved in this study have now come forward to disavow any connetion of this research to CCD, and to reiterate that they did NOT examine cell phones. I have now updated the article to reflect this, and included a citation. Dyanega 17:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the following sentence at the end of the section on EM - "Regardless, such an explanation is not compatible with the historical and present patterns of CCD appearance, which have been intermittent and sudden." This statement is a personal opinion since it offers no evidence either for or against it. The statement does not belong here, it is litter; I have done personal research into the wave propogation of HAARP in Alaska, and have a rough hypothesis as to the intermittent and sudden loss of some bees, but I certainly won't litter the article with it since like that sentence, I am not a professional scientist and thus my opinion is 'litter'. To understand what I mean, my own research reveals a possible connection with the use of the HAARP digisonde from April 5 to April 30, 2007 (then again May 3rd to May 22nd and early June 2007) in which waves propagated from the transmitter of that Alaskan facility traveled outwards in 360 degrees, some of which traveled along typical paths SSE down the West Coast and also more east through the SE corner of Arizona and more east into Texas - in the first week between April 8 and 12th, unrelated persons in Clovis CA, Woodland Hills CA and another family in Bisbee AZ reported a massive amount of dead bees found beneath a flowering shrub/tree where the day before the bees had been happily buzzing (according to their reports, neither had used any pesticides for years nor did either have a cold snap of any kind (please see Cosmos Magazine's forum on the Mystery of the Dead Bees pages 5, 7, 9 and 12 of thosee forums). Be aware that you can draw a perfectly straight line from HAARP in Alaska through Clovis CA and Woodland Hills, which is effectively Los Angeles. Another person around May 3rd in Merced said he found dead bees, but according to HAARP’s online data, nothing of the magnitude waves previously propagated occurred then. Someone else wrote from West Coast Canada that they had dead bees in June, and HAARP was active between June 7 and 14th-ish; I hope that person might give me an exact city should they reply to these forums, or anyone for that matter who might have had similar so I can continue to investigate. Please note that Merced CA is fairly well off the straight line from HAARP to Woodland Hills.

HAARP radiates its waves under the 10mhz range, which attenuate to 6.99mhz along the propagation path. It should also be noted these waves tend to be absorbed by the D-Layer of the Ionosphere, but this D-Layer disappears at dusk. The intermittent and sudden loss of bees geographically and time-wise could be explained by how radio waves propagate - they bounce along the sky, hitting only certain land areas while completely skipping others even a few miles distant (shadow). In addition, during that same week in April, HAARP recorded that the Ionosphere was dramatically absorbing incoming space-waves/solar winds/radiation which would only create a cleaner environment for the full spectrum of waves sent by the digisonde. HAARP's waves also produce an afterglow about 630 nanometers long, which bees can easily see but we cannot; bees staying out late or at night wouldn't be unreasonable since it would appear the bee might be confused by the continued "daylight" if one of these waves bounced into their region of the world. HAARP may easily be as viable an interference to bees as herbicides or cell towers (3rd Gen phones now having packets of 220 cycles, within the same range of 190 to 250 cycles for bees).

I hope further research is being completed, and I wonder if all of these factors contribute.Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong conclusion in "Pathogens and immunodeficiency"?

I have a problem with the following paragraph:

"When a colony is dying, and there are other healthy colonies nearby (as is typical in a bee yard), those healthy colonies may enter the dying colony and rob its provisions for their own use. If the dying colony's provisions were contaminated (by natural or man-made toxins), the resulting pattern (of healthy colonies becoming sick when in proximity to a dying colony) would suggest that of a contagious disease. However, it is often reported in CCD cases that provisions of dying colonies are not being robbed, suggesting that at least this particular factor is not involved in CCD."

First it should be "When a colony is dying for any reason" to make clear that not only CCD is meant, and second, how does the (highly interesting) fact that the CCD colonies are not robbed (and parasite invasion delayed) and have any bearing on the possible cause of CCD being pathogens and immunodeficiency or not. If it is not robbed, epidemiology of the neighboring colonies will NOT tell anything about the cause, no? As a matter of fact, if other bees don't rob the stores, doesn't that make pathogen contamination sound more plausible? Maybe someone who is more steeped in the topic can remove this paragraph from "Pathogens and immunodeficiency"? BjornVDM 13:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that toxins can get into healthy colonies when they rob the stores of an contaminated colony - some people have suggested that this is why CCD may be pesticides but look like a disease. Since no one is robbing the stores of CCD colonies, there can be no toxin transmission via this mechanism. I'll think about how to reword it, but the conclusion is sound. Dyanega 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The reports that I've read have not said that there is "no robbing", only that there is a delay in the robbing. They further report that when equipment (and stores) from a CCD colony are put onto a strong colony, the strong colony rapidly succumbs, whether or not there are still bees in the CCD'd colony. I don't think they've ruled out this transmission mechanism yet. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What reports, and where have you read them? If this is true, then the article needs to be changed to reflect this information. 138.23.134.119 16:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A very large assumption that's oft repeated but never (to my knowledge) proved

I believe this quote is unworthy of Wikipedia, because it's simply an assumption (and it's also contrary to my lifelong experience) -

and when honey bees are absent from a region, the native pollinators quickly reclaim the niche

This needs to be rewritten to remove the assumption (or provide solid citations on it). My observation (and I've been doing this carefully for years is that, where conditions are good enough to maintain high honey bee populations, they also maintain good populations of native bees; the opposite also being true, that where honey bees are absent or scarce, so will native bees. While they may overlap on some flowers, they are often working totally different species in the same area.

A may reclaim would be approriate. Basically it boils down on wheter there is habitat available for nesting and feeding. In W Europe, wild bee populations havbe plummeted in recent decades and this is now being construed as CCD by the averade shite-for-brains reporter. It is actually due to habitat destruction. So even if honeybees were to disappear from, say, Germany, odds are our wild bees wouldn't make a comeback.
Butterflies OTOH are the mainstay pollinators for an entirely different set of flowers. Even bumblebees cannot replace "true" bees as pollinators in many cases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I have done almost all my observations in agricultural areas of Eastern USA, and believe that patterns of pesticide use are a significant factor in this, so it might not be true in some of the wilder areas of the West. Of course I can't put it in the article - it would be dismissed as original research, but the assuption doesn't belong there either. Pollinator 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the text to address this. Funny, but I'd assumed that text was your edit, originally. Dyanega 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


You never - very rarely - see a bee on any apple, wild plum, etc anymore in my area. You still get small crops. Wild bees I think died out some time ago around here. Even the professional beekeeper in the area is being wiped out - 50% losses or so. If you send down south for bees you occasionally get bees that must be killer bees - mean as hell and die in the first winter from the cold. 159.105.80.141 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DECT Phones

[1] If you read the "explorative study" in detail, it says that bees are so small, that their resonant frequencies (fs) are much higher than cell phones (375 GHz). http://www.bienenarchiv.de/forschung/2004_lernprozesse/Electromagnetic%20Exposure_Learning%20Processes.doc.pdf Essentially, they don't have body part large enough to receive anything at 850 MHz where US cell phones operate and 1.9 GHz where US PCS phones operate.65.161.188.11 18:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That sort of detail has no bearing on the matter at hand - no one takes this study seriously, and especially not this bizarre stuff about resonant frequencies - the issue HERE is whether there is any reason to think that EMF can be related to CCD. There is no evidence linking the two, so the theory behind the cell phone research is irrelevant at this point. Dyanega 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you really read my comment in detail and responded from the hip. The point is that there can't be evidence linking the two. I am citing the "explorative study" by Landau University. The bee would have to have a body part that is large enough to resonate at cellular frequencies. It's just like your ear can't hear very low frequencies. So basically, the link between EMF and CCD really has not been established - this is bogus science.Kgrr 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

DECT Phones are NOT cell phones, they are cordless phones operating in the unlicensed portion of the 1.9 GHz band. Read both the 2004 and 2006 Landau University "studies". Bue please don't rely on reference #6, they are not really a trusted source.Kgrr 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Organisms do not experience resonance nor "receive" signals (this is not the same as hearing); this is itself a fringe science, with no hard science to back it up. As noted in the WP article on the topic (Mobile phone radiation and health): No experimental results to date have indicated that this hypothesis is valid. cite: G J Hyland (2000). "Physics and biology of mobile telephony". The Lancet 356: 1833-1836. - this does not mean that microwave radiation is harmless to honey bees, but it does mean that the Hz values have zero significance. Any damage (or lack thereof) of microwave emissions on biological tissues is not related to the frequencies of the signal. It is only the results of their study that are of interest, but their theory is outside the realm of science. Dyanega 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not at all saying the bees are able to demodulate cordless phone signals.
But I will stand by the fact that damage to biological organisms very much has something to do with frequency. I'm sure you will acknowledge that humans are damaged by cosmic rays, x-rays, and ultra-violet (UV). All of these are very high in frequency and are known to cause cancer due to ionization. Below the visual spectrum, EMF causes heating instead of ionization. There are plenty of papers that back this.
Certainly, you've heard of a microwave oven. It uses 2.45 GHz as its center frequency simply because 2.45Ghz is a good comprimise. Higher frequencies do not penetrate and lower frequencies do. How much heating is caused does depend on the frequency and the mode of resonance. For example, water has several frequencies where it resonates and absorbs more energy than other frequencies. The major absorption peaks are at 22.2, 183.3, and 323.8 GHz.
But I do have to say the article sounds like bogus science. Who really operates their cordless phone inside of a bee hive? Not me. Kgrr 21:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the WP entry for microwave oven, then: Microwave heating is sometimes explained as a rotational resonance of water molecules, but this is incorrect: such resonance only occurs in water vapour at much higher frequencies, at about 20 gigahertz. Moreover, large industrial/commercial microwave ovens operating at 915 MHz also heat water and food perfectly well. That means that the phenomenon in question cannot involve resonance - and, again, resonance is a property of a substance (water, in this case), not of an organism (the size difference between a human and a honey bee has nothing to do with what frequency of radiation will harm them). I didn't mean that frequency is completely unimportant in all contexts, just in THIS context, given the narrow range of frequencies involved; I don't see any reason to think that the range of signal frequencies in question (between 0.8 and 5 GHz) will make any difference, and if you can find citations showing that this limited range of frequencies varies in its effect on biological systems, that would be interesting. Dyanega 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They were looking for non-heating effects of RF

Let me first of all state that they were hoping to find Non-Heating effects of RF. I may have not made myself clear here. It seems odd to me that they are using a DECT base station instead of a carefully calibrated RF signal generator. It's as if they are working the problem with a culprit in mind and then trying to find evidence to back their hypothesis. With a signal generator, they would have been able to observe the effects of RF on their bees at varying frequencies. The RF generator can be modulated by another source to pulse the signal. Non-thermal effects are manifested as changes in cellular metabolism caused by both resonance absorption and induced EMFs and, when neural structures are involved, are often accompanied by a specific behavioural response. I did not see them check for changes in metabolism or changes in behavior. I would have expected methods for measuring field strength in mW/cm2. Also, I would have expected careful measurements of temperature to ensure that their setup was not heating the beehive. Junk science?

[edit] Heating occurs throughout RF spectrum, some better than others

You are correct - you can heat at much lower frequencies too. 13 and 27 MHz are not uncommon frequencies for large commercial RF heaters. Frequencies for microwave ovens are based on the frequencies assigned by the FCC (47 CFR part 18) and not what is the most efficient frequency for heating. RF transmitters are terribly inefficient at higher frequencies. So it's a trade-off between the efficiency of the RF transmitter and the ability to vibrate water molecules. At lower frequencies, the resonance involved is the dipole moment between the H-O-H. At higher frequencies, it's the atom itself that vibrates. There is a graph I've seen that plots frequency versus absorption. (I can't find it right now) It's a smooth curve with a couple of peaks increasing as frequency increases rather than being flat with a couple of peaks. But, yes, the heating of biological systems is most definitely a property of water and other molecules. During RF heating, heat is generated due to molecular friction resulting from the applied alternating electric field oscillating molecules and ions. All molecules vibrate with RF energy applied. I.e. RF energy will "cook" proteins as well, not just boil water.

[edit] Path loss is more for PCS than Cellular

It takes 4 times the energy (6dB) to get from point A to point B on 1.9 GHz as it does on 850 MHz. See Friis transmission equation ((aka Friis free space equation)) This assumes an isotropic antenna on both ends. Another way of stating this: given two transmitters with the same power output - one at frequency F and the other at 2F, the received signal strength will be x dB and x-6 dB. A higher frequency allows the construction of antennas that have more gain at a higher frequency with the same size. But cellphone antennas are nearly omnidirectional anyway. So why are these guys looking at cell phones and PCS phones that are operating in the milliwatts when there are FM and UHF transmitters that have effective radiated power in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of watts? I would have expected that higher field strengths would have caused more results.

Kgrr 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaws in Harts, Kuhn, Stever (2006) experiment

The Harts, Kuhn, Stever (2006) experiment is flawed in several ways. It's not a double-blind, randomized study and the controls are not identical to the test unit. I understand it's a preliminary investigation and not a complete study. But even a good science fair project does some things to remove as much bias as possible from its experiment. I'm sorry this is JUNK SCIENCE.
The researchers know which hives are control and which hives have the DECT cordless base unit in it. And, the bees should not be able to detect whether their hive is control or one with a DECT base in it. The problem with this is that the researchers may inadvertently record data wanting a certain result.
Note that the eight control hives had no DECT base unit in them. The bees may not have liked the smell of the DECT base unit or its additional warmth. Perhaps if the hive is warmer, maybe the bees insctinctively know not to collect as much pollen/honey.
In a well designed experiment, both the control and the active bee hives would have antennas mounted in them. The RF source would have been located in a separate enclosure, far away from the bee hive so that it's heat did not change conditions in the hive and connected to the antenna via low-loss transmission line.
The experiment was not re-run so that the bees used as controls in one experiment were then exposed to RF in a subsequent experiment and vise-versa. The bees that got the DECT base station installed into their hive may have been contaminated in one way or another. The bee hives that contained the DECT base units may have been made sick due to the installation of the base units. Perhaps the test hives were at one end of the row of hives and the controls were at the other end. The test hives could have gotten more or less sun exposure than the control hives. The experiment should have removed that variable completely by randomizing which hives were test and which were controls.
The hives could also have been run as self-controls. I.e. the behavior of the hive should have been recorded before and after the experiment with a control period. This would have ensured that the RF was the only variable applied.
The article does not explain the technical flaws they encountered in detail nor do they adequately explain the gaps in the weather data.
They claimed they were looking for "Non-thermal effects of RF" nut did not adequately record temperatures inside of the control and the test hives. They needed to adequately prove that their experiment was not heating the test hive. I also did not see the data on how much the bees had actually eaten when they were fed. They should have taken a much closer look at metabolic changes such as the level of activity in the hive.
The article was not peer reviewed to uncover the above flaws in the experiment. ==> Junk Science

Kgrr 11:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Jochen Kuhn und Hermann Stever paper (German)

Kuhn Stever 2003 71.37.23.175 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This German Journal article "Elektromagnetische Exposition als Einflussfaktor für Lernprozesse - ein Einwirkungsmodell der Bildungsinformatik mit Bienen als Bioindikatorenis" is not related to CCD, but Cognitive Science in bees. Kgrr 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done

[edit] Any link to Wasps (European Bee Wolves)?

Philanthus triangulum Kgrr 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has proposed any connection of bee wolves to CCD; beewolves have been around for millenia, as have their prey. Further, P. triangulum is completely absent from the New World, where CCD is far more widely reported. The same basic thing is true of Vespa mandarinia, a honey bee predator widely known in Asia - just because there are predators in the world, somewhere, is no reason to put them on the list of "possible suspects". Dyanega 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional Report

Renée Johnson "Recent Honey Bee Colony Decline" Congressional Research Service March 26, 2007 Kgrr 00:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Kgrr 14:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Post

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100650.html By GENARO C. ARMAS "Mystery Ailment Strikes Honeybees" Washington Post February 11, 2007]Kgrr 00:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done

[edit] Any remedies?

Does anyone know if efforts are being taken to address this problem?Michaeljwsiegel 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

MAAREC offers the following course of action: CCD Recommendations. Perhaps other recommendations can be added when they are found. Kgrr 15:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Y Done

[edit] Global warming relation

I'd like to propose that another possible cause for CCD is global warming, or that the two are at least related. Subtle temperature variations can cause different plants to bloom earlier/later. Certain predators/mites/etc. might also have some advantages. There's also the phenomenon of ousting drones with weather changes. Check out this article: http://www.beebehavior.com/global_warming_bee_behavior.php

I think this is reason enough to suspect there can be some link between global warming and CCD. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by CydeSwype (talk • contribs)

Didn't Al Gore touch on something like this in An Inconvenient Truth? I remember the example; it wasn't bees though.... -- Kendrick7talk 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a credible citation linking the two phenomena, then by all means include it, but do not expect it to be supported. Again, chronic, long-term factors like global warming, cell phones, and such are not consistent with the abrupt and sporadic appearances of CCD and potentially related phenomena from past years and decades. Ask yourself this: what was different between the fall of 2003-spring 2004 and the corresponding time period in 2006-2007? If a particular "pet" theory cannot explain why honey bees did not die in 2003/2004 and *did* die in 2006/2007 (or why so many beekeepers remain entirely unaffected), then that theory is probably not applicable. That's one reason so few bee researchers place any credence in the entire phenomenon; other than colony stress, there is no external factor whose occurrence matches the spatial and temporal appearance of CCD. Colony stress is not a disease - and it's something that is a beekeeper's responsibility to avoid. I know several beekeepers in California, and none of them are reporting any problems whatsoever, aside from those beekeepers who have Varroa infestations - the ones keeping their bees well-fed and healthy, with regular requeening, didn't have any unusual dieoffs - this DESPITE a record-breaking drought. Dyanega 20:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the bees in "Inconvenient Truth" were being killed by wasps. This exactly why I made a note any link to Wasps (European Bee Wolves)? Kgrr 05:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Scale and phenomenology of CCD doesn't fit with GW. Current bee dieoff in C Europe is apparently weather-related (no rain in most parts of the continent since 6 weeks or so, and temps in the high 20s/low 30s °C) and the odd weather seems to be GW-related. BUT the phenomenon is different: bees under these circumstances starve; food stocks are being depleted as foodplants did't flower at the expected time this year. Also parasite load is very high; colonies that usually wouldn't have made it through winter survived this year in quantity, because in most of C Europe, there wasn't any "winter" to speak of. Dysmorodrepanis 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The climate change section of this article is currently poorly written. It consists of mainly quotes strung together with links to the articles they come from. More explanation on the individuals being quoted, or the sources being quoted, should be included in these paragraphs, or a better explanation of the situation as a whole. As it stands, the section is confusing and poorly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.84.73 (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of "poisonous plants" section?

As I look over things in detail again today, I notice that not one scientific or press report I can find has linked CCD to poisonous plants, and it strikes me that - as such - this entire section probably represents original research on the part of the editor who first included it. If no one can attach some appropriate citations in the next day or so, I expect I will be removing this section, accordingly. It can always be restored should anything come to light regarding it. Dyanega 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen. That's a good call, and some of the material is misleading to boot. Pollinator 22:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weak References

I am working on improving the quality of this article. One of the major problems is that it needs to be properly sourced. Preferably, the sources should be reliable sources such as scientific literature, journals, etc. In most cases, the references are sub-standard or inadequate.

Please respond to my list of proposals:

  • Reference #4 Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group. is basically an introductory paragraph for the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group web page. It makes a huge set of claims, but in itself it is not a reliable source (see WP:RS). There are five instances (a, b, c, d, and e) where this reference is used. These all need to be replaced with more reliable sources for each. I would like to remove this reference and replace all instances with {{fact}} until more solid reference(s) can be found.
This is an overly restrictive interpretation of WP:RS, I believe - the CCDWG is THE primary authority on the subject! They have defined the syndrome, and they are the main source of data ON the syndrome. It is fine to treat their publications with some skepticism (many of us do, in fact), but that certainly does not justify deleting citations attributed to them! This is a developing story, and it is going to be months if not years before anyone outside the CCDWG produces peer-reviewed publications on the topic. In the meantime, the information they provide, skimpy as it may be, is what we have to go on, and should continue to be cited here. By its very nature, this article is going to have to include more than the average amount of speculative content - virtually nothing surrounding this is established fact, and won't be for some time. This article accordingly is going to need at least a little "breathing room" until things sort themselves out. Dyanega 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dyanega, you are right, I would be overstepping my bounds by deleting references to the CCDWG homepage. BTW I'm not at all skeptical of the CCDWG. I also find the MAAREC will be a good resource too. And, I do believe that eventually, the literature will be full of research articles. But the problem is that the CCD article refers five times to the top page of the CCDWG. Instead, it should actually be referring to individual articles and facts within their website. Alternatively, more reliable sources should be found than just the CCDWG's unreferenced homepage. I will help find the correct references.Kgrr 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Theories include ... unknown pathogens (i.e., disease[4])"

- ??? looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Limited occurrences resembling CCD have been documented as early as 1896[4]"

- needs reference to Howard (1896) (see slide on page 8 [[2]]) - ??? looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "At present, the primary source of information, and presumed "lead" group investigating the phenomenon, is the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[4]"

- ok ... reference properly points to the CCDWG web page. Y DoneKgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "However, similar massive bee die-offs have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops[4]"

- perhaps the slide deck [[3]] is better for this one. But the references needed here are Howard (1896), Burnside (1930), Disappearing Disease (1915)[4] --looking into it Kgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "The preliminary report of the Colony Collapse Disorder Working Group[4] concerning "Fall Dwindle Disease"[7]"

- here reference [4] is just referencing to the CCDWG. Perhaps the CCDWG needs a wiki page. Y DoneKgrr 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Kgrr 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other possible causes

  • Lack of genetic diversity?
  • Direct Stress (bee rentals, sugar water replacement for honey, bee farming too intrusive?
  • Artificial Insemination?

65.101.141.224 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All are totally speculative - and mostly contrary to the observations of beekeepers. As far as bee rentals, moving bees from no bloom to a blooming crop helps alleviate stress, assuming they don't overheat on the truck. Keeping bees working is far less stressful on a colony than having them sit around (and possible robbing each other). Mite and pathogin buildup occur faster in colonies that are inactive than in ones that are busy. Old bees carry their pathogins away from the hive when they can no longer return loaded.
And feeding bees is far less stressful than starvation. Some of the feeding beekeepers do results from bees unable to feed themselves due to pesticide hits causing losses of the field force. Should they just be left to starve?
Pesticide hits have to be the most significant unnatural stress that occurs to the bees. That can happen anywhere to any bees, wild, feral, or domestic. The only bees that have any chance at alleviation of that stress are those under the care of a beekeeper. Pollinator 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, the observations of beekeepers are not necessarily a replacement for controlled experimental investigation. Further, several of the beekeepers I have talked to mention two of the three things mentioned above (lack of genetic diversity and artificial insemination) as contributing to the general decline in honey bees, though not necessarily to the CCD phenomenon. I don't know if this is being investigated in that context, and it certainly wouldn't explain the observed dieoff patterns.
The feeding question, as I understand it, is not asking whether supplemental feeding induces/reduces stress, but whether removing the honey from a colony and replacing it with something else like corn syrup is stressful on the bees. However, that particular idea as an explanation for CCD seems to be incompatible with the evidence, given that CCD still occurs in colonies whose honey stores have not been swapped out for artificial sugar sources.
Just consider any factors suggested as responsible for CCD, in light of when and where CCD is being observed, and what is and is not being reported in association with the phenomenon. THAT is what the scientific approach means - evaluate hypotheses using the available evidence, and that evidence includes the patterns of dieoff. A number of the theories proposed so far simply fail this test, meaning they are either not involved, or at least that they are not BY THEMSELVES responsible for CCD. There is indeed a difference between a "possible cause" and a "contributing factor", and too much of the discussion around this topic confuses and conflates the two. Dyanega 18:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: loss of genetic diversity, isn't this a given in honeybees not only because of management practices, but also because the species reproduces by haplo-diploidy, with one breeding partner (the queen) contributing more chromosomes to her offspring than the other? 70.184.72.38 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. For two reasons: the only offspring that receive more chromosomes from their mother are the drones (who have no father at all), upon whom natural selection is barely acting. The other is that free-mating queens mate MANY times, so the gene pool in a colony is normally very diverse. The "lack of genetic diversity" issue is solely a matter of artificiality: if half the queens in the world are supplied by a handful of queen-suppliers, and if they're being artificially inseminated with sperm from only a tiny handful of males, then you're just begging for trouble (trouble such as inbreeding depression). Dyanega 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Severe inbreeding (queen mating with brother) will result in brood death; whether by natural death or removal by workers, I'm not sure, but it occurs most often where honey bees have become scarce, so there is not a good supply of drones. As far as loss of genetic diversity, the issue is well known and being actively addressed by queen breeders. Pollinator 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Albert Einstein quote

I thought that this quote should be added in the article Albert Einstein one said that "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." just my 2 cents and yes this quote is authentic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


You say the Einstein quote is authentic, but where is the proof? Can you provide a source?


here it is http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2007/02/thomas_gerber_m.html Albert Einstein made the statement "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years left to live." He was speaking in regard to the symbiotic relationship of all life on the planet. All part of a huge interconnected ecosystem, each element playing a role dependant on many other elements all working in concert creating the symphony of life. Should any part of the global body suffer, so does the whole body. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 08:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Despite the unsourced qoutes in your references above, there is still some question if the qoute is authentic. See: Einstein biographer unaware of Einstein's Bee Qoute [5] and a political comedian using the qoute in his monologue is certainly not proof that it was attributed to Einstein. --Bugguyak 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I left the quote added to the article, as the issue is likely to brought up again if people don't see it there. Plus it now addresses the fact that who said it is not clear. Comments? DocGratis 15:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have certainly found the citation in German on a quotes site at [6]

which is clearly attributed to German born Albert Einstein. "Wenn die Biene einmal von der Erde verschwindet, hat der Mensch nur noch vier Jahre zu leben. Keine Bienen mehr, keine Bestäubung mehr, keine Pflanzen mehr, keine Tiere mehr, kein Mensch mehr." However, the page does not provide a context for it.

Certainly, Albert Einstein was a strong advocate of Socialism. In his 1949 Monthly review article "Why Socialism?"[7] he contrasts humans and bees and their fixed social behavior "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change." At that time, he was also pre-occupied with the grand unified theory. Did you know both ants and bees have highly developed gravity-sensing organs? It would not surprise me at all if he looked at nature for many answers to his questions.Kgrr 14:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I found several references to a short form of the Einstein quote "No bees, no food for mankind. The bee is the basis of life on this earth." [8] This page was created in 2003. Kgrr 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "Bienen sind gar nicht so fleißig, wie ihnen immer nachgesagt wird. Sie können nur nicht langsamer fliegen." A bee is never as busy as it seems; it's just that it can't buzz any slower.

Kin Hubbard (1868-1930), eigtl. Frank McKinney, amerik. Humorist | Zitat-Nr.: 1398

[edit] Infamous or famous?

Is the quote really infamous?

in·fa·mous /ˈɪnfəməs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fuh-muhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. having an extremely bad reputation: an infamous city. 2. deserving of or causing an evil reputation; shamefully malign; detestable: an infamous deed. 3. Law. a. deprived of certain rights as a citizen, as a consequence of conviction of certain offenses. b. of or pertaining to offenses involving such deprivation.

I don't think it meets any of these three definitions. The heading should be corrected 65.101.141.224 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed it to Apocryphal Y Done Kgrr 15:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it inappropriate to include a melodramatic, apocryphal quote in an encyclopedia article? If it were appropriate to include random quotes, another would be from Jean de Crèvecoeur, that the honeybee "...spreads sadness and consternation..." Rolofft 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a random quote - it is one that has appeared in the press HUNDREDS of times now, always in specific reference to CCD. Just Google it if you want proof that this quote and CCD are linked in the media's collective consciousness. I find over 60,000 hits, each linking this quote to the recent honey bee disappearances. That seems pretty darn relevant to this article, no? Dyanega 16:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I too agree that the quote is melodramatic, not to mention just plain inaccurate. Not only is its content as well as the original source of the quote in question but its sensationalism is innappropriate, but I have to agree that its inclusion in the article is necessary. Perhaps a rewrite of that section is in order to include a clarification? Bugguyak 03:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCD affecting other insects?

While all this is certainly entertaining, the qoute does not stand on its own in that even if all honeybee populations collapse, mankind will not disappear. Wild pollinator insects, animals, and even wind can still pollinate many even most edible food crops. Even if those crops that depend solely on domestic bee pollenation cannot be produced any longer, humans would adapt agriculture to fill those niches. --Bugguyak 02:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point it's not clear yet that CCD only affects bees. It certainly stands to reason that other insects could be affected by the same disorder. Also, the quote may be overly simplified. But the big picture is that without pollinators, things are much more difficult.65.101.141.224 04:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen any references that have indicated that wild bee populations, wild pollinators or other insects have been affected by the same disorder. If you know of any references that cite a similar decline in native or wild pollinators it may be helpful to include a section on this.--Bugguyak 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Wild bees are generally becoming rare in the Western world due to habitat destruction. This is AFAIK most severe in C Europe. Dysmorodrepanis 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that wild bees are increasingly rare worldwide, but the cause has little if anything to do with colony collapse. --Bugguyak 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Little if anything"? The proper and correct response is it has nothing to do with CCD. Even in the event that CCD should prove to be a "disease", diseases are rather specific in what they affect, and a disease that affects honey bees is unlikely to affect any other insects; and there are only 7 species of honey bees. It's like expecting that a disease that affects deer will spread to other mammals, such as humans. That is an unreasonable expectation - it most definitely does NOT "stand to reason that other insects could be affected by the same disorder" - the reality is exactly the opposite. The seven species in the genus Apis have had something on the order of 35 million years of independent evolution - 35 million years for their genomes to diverge from those of all other insects; compare that to the 70 million years mammals have existed. The human genome has had about as much time to diverge from deer, as the honey bee genome has had to diverge from other bees. But no one expects humans and deer to be affected by the same diseases. Why should a honey bee disease affect other bees?
While it is certainly true that habitat destruction and climate change are major threats to pollinating insects, bees foremost among them, CCD, even in a worst-case scenario, is not a threat to anything outside of agriculture. Dyanega 19:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing can be added to that, thank you Dyanega. --Bugguyak 21:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not appropriate to cite errors by reporters

Josef09's latest edit included a citation of a news piece ([9]) which erroneously claims that genetically modified corn contains imidacloprid. This is false. The actual quote is "Many farmers in the United States and around the world rely on genetically engineered corn to survive the assault of crop-killing insects. The seeds are coated with a systemic pesticide that is essentially built into the corn as it grows." The facts are: (1) ANY type of corn seeds may be coated with imidacloprid (2) not all GM corn seed is coated with imidacloprid (3) no one has demonstrated that the imidacloprid from the seed coating makes it into the pollen in significant amounts. Furthermore, the news item was inappropriately inserted into the section on Bt toxin, instead of the section on imidacloprid. This is a perfect example of why secondary sources such as news articles should NOT serve as the basis for a WP article that deals with science. Dyanega 16:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Imidacloprid seed coatings on corn are specifically designed to protect the seedlings; by the time a corn plant starts producing pollen, the activity of the pesticide is negligible, if only through dilution effects (not surprising, given that there is only 0.16 mg of pesticide per kernel [10]). As the corn grows in biomass, the pesticide effects get progressively weaker and weaker, contrary to what the reporter has implied. Dyanega 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Error in the pesticides section

Fipronil is described as a neonicotinoid insecticide, which it is not. Fipronil belongs to a different chemical family, the phenylpyrazoles (refer to Wiki page for Fipronil).

The editor who inserted that sentence must not have realized this; I've removed the reference to Fipronil. Dyanega 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

This article has been semi-protected for a week due to edit warring by anonymous IPs. Please discuss any potentially controversial changes to the article on this talk page instead of edit warring. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Possible Cause

People are trying to figure out what's causing the bee's demise, but I think I may know the answer. How about plain good old fashioned human STUPIDITY???

"Yesterday residents at the Village Apartments in Bridge City thought they put their bee burden to rest when they found and destroyed at least 30 hives ... 'We had a huge mound that as in the front of my building but moved to the back, one of the tenants that lives here got a big huge stick, pulled the plywood down in the back, in the top of the building and bee hives, like 30 of 'em he knocked down to the ground.'... The apartment complex had an exterminator kill the bees, and ... "Thought we destroyed the problem until this morning, it looked like a tornado in my front yard, bees were flying as big as a tornado... now they have landed on my front window and they're up in the cracks. Verret says she and her children have been afraid to open the windows or even walk out of their apartment for fear of getting stung"

http://www.kfdm.com/news/bees_20379___article.html/bee_apartment.html

Them Texans, they ain't too bright ay they? 4.246.206.201 14:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

Is anybody else noticing this? This is all recent news.

Ted Vorhees is one of twelve residents of a single Delray Beach development whose home has been overrun by bees. A beekeeper removed thousands of the buzzing bugs from his wall two months ago, but the bees quickly came back.

[11]

TWIN FALLS, Idaho – For a couple of hours, a hospital here had several thousand unwanted visitors. A swarm of bees took over a crabapple tree near the northeast entrance of the St. Luke's Magic Valley Regional Medical Center on Wednesday for about two hours. 'There was quite a bit of alarm about it,' hospital groundskeeper Sam Hutchins told the Times-News. 'We thought about spraying them but decided not to because we could have excited them.' The bees massed in the tree in a swarm about 10 inches thick and 3 feet long. The area was roped off to keep people away.

[12]

Even Poe was impressed with the size of the swarm. He estimated the mound of bees to weigh as much as seven pounds - far more than what's available commercially ... 'They were amazed at the size and number of bees that were there,' said Mrs. McCormack. 'It was amazing. There were just thousands and thousands of them. Those who saw it couldn't believe the size of it. They'd never seen that many bees gathered together in one place.' this one reportedly still had the queen within the swarm. [13]

More headlines

Huge swarm of bees settles in Chico couple's backyard

City Hall swarmed with bees

In the UK,

Thousands of bees have set up home in the chimney and gardens of two neighbouring houses in Kidlington - and the angry owners are desperate for them to 'buzz off'. again the locals tried to kill them. Swarm of bees invades houses

Shoppers avoid swarm of Bees

Buzz stop: The swarm of bees on the bush in Keith Chisholm’s ...

Lots more here [14].

Back to the idiot files:

Last week, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill that adds wild honeybees to the list of public nuisances because they endanger public health. [15]

Maybe normal swarming for this time of year? In any event, I think word needs to go out to stop spraying (and otherwise harrassing) the bees and the flowers they visit. 4.246.206.201 14:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If bees swarm, they should take their queen with them. Dysmorodrepanis 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm just wondering if maybe the bees are not dying enmasse as we are assuming but are just up and moving sans the queen and little ones [later added note: something similar to this actually seems to occur already in bee populations called "absconding" [16] where the bees all abandon their hive and apparently is particularly common in african bees]. Or with a new queen (or something mimiking the scent of a queen). Nobody seems to be finding masses of dead ones. They just disappear. Could they be simply abandoning their contaminated human-made hives for all the reasons listed and relocating as a last ditch survival option, many to town - only to be killed by those who depend upon them the most out of fear that they are "killer bees" [17]? Maybe with the dearth of rainfall this year the usual flowering of plants is abbreviated or gone then some scout discovers a bonanza in town with flowers in front of every house (possibly sprayed)? Has anyone tried placing new, clean nesting boxes somewhat near the old ones to see if they move to them? Or placing them near wildflower fields? How are wild bee populations doing? Native bees? I am not an apiarist, just wondering. Please excuse if these are ignorant questions.4.246.206.70 07:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I see where someone else is thinking along these lines, from a "beekeeping novice" "I think with all these wild bees that are invading the homes," he said, "it's possible we have something very positive going on here" [18]. Well I wouldn't call it "very positive", but maybe it's better than completely gone, if this is what's happening. 4.246.206.70 08:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One last thought (thanks for indulging me), and I know that plenty of others have suggested it, our crop fields tend to be monocultures with only one or a few kinds of flowering plants being grown there. This is good for business mass production but not so good for bees which naturally may visit many kinds of flowering plants in a given wild field. Why not begin planting native wildflowers throughout these fields (not just the periphery). This would mean, though, discontinuing the use of genetically modified crops which are designed to be sprayed with toxic herbicides that kill all plants within those fields except the laboratory made GMOs [19]. 4.246.201.229 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Further Research

We've been reading dire reports about the loss of crops, but further research reveals that the immediate threat is to fruit. Vegetables, roots (eg, carrot), tubers (eg, potato, radish), leaves (eg spinach, lettuce), stems (eg, celery), bulbs (eg, onion) which are usually harvested prior to pollination, will still produce their edible parts - so long as the seeds hold out.

Additionally, with regard to fruit, growing of seedless varieties, known as vegetative Parthenocarpy, do not require pollination, and should continue (most hopefully by natural breeding not genetic engineering). Examples are apparently the cactus (prickly) pear, the fig, the banana, the cucumber, the breadfruit and eggplant.

It's interesting too that there is at least one company that would benefit from CCD, that being Monsanto. This company that specializes in genetically modifying crops ("Thus, genetic engineering will most likely give consumers parthenocarpic fruit in many other species in the near future" [20] is also "the largest seed and biotech company over all" [21] [22]. A big issue with them has been their creation of what is called "Terminator" seeds (a.k.a. "suicide seeds"), seeds genetically modified so that the resultant crops produce seeds that are sterile, denying farmers the ability to replant the seeds to continue growing (a traditional and economical practice), and thus forcing farmers in the Roundup Ready System to have to buy their seeds anew from Monsanto every year [23]. Who needs Terminator when the natural pollinators themselves are going away. No accusations, just random paranoid thoughts. 4.246.201.47 19:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Thus, genetic engineering will most likely give consumers parthenocarpic fruit in many other species in the near future" - such announcements always need to be taken with an unhealthy dose of salt, just as "genetic engineering will give us the AIDS vaccine, the Cure for Cancer", etc). There is no general genetic mechanism known to induce parthenocarpy at at will. Interestingly, most parthenocarpic plants have berries; as these are a rather simple type of fruit anatomically and ontogenetically, that may have something to do with it. If so, good luck waiting for parthenoigenetic apples, cherries and strawberries (especially strawberries - the growing seeds are apparently directly responsible for the fruit growing and ripening in these).
If the science dept of Monsanto were as prolific as their marketing dept, yes, we'd have parthenocarpic fruits galore. But it isn't; as opposed to marketing, science is limited by the available knowledge, not the imagination. Dysmorodrepanis 20:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleshed out the "Bee rental" section

I rewrote and expanded the section 'Bee rental and "Mobile Beekeeping"', from an article in "High Country News". I admit I did little other research outside of WP, so if I've lied about anything, I'm sure one of the surprisingly active editors here will adjust it. I tried not to add anything directly pertaining to the debate about cause, just background information on the widespread nature of apiaries on wheels in the US. I didn't remove anything, I don't believe, and I cited my source.

I also added a To-do to the list on this page: cleanup the technical jargon in the middle of this article. Especially in the long section right before "Bee rental", I nearly fell asleep trying to wade through that. Eaglizard 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


It's more commonly referred to as migratory beekeeping. Pollinator 02:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assumption noted

Assumptions are bubbles that need to be burst, particularly when they run contrary to long years of experience by many expert beekeepers. One was this statement: "Additionally, such continuous movement and re-settlement is certainly a strain and disruption for the entire hive, rendering it less resistant to all sorts of systemic disorder." No matter how many reporters make the claim, there are no real scientific studies that show this, and there probably can't be. It would be hard to design a "one-size-fits-all" experiment that could determine its veracity. Allowing a truck load of bees to get overheated is certainly a stress. It will cause brood death and probably other problems. But it's not a hard and fast situation. Taking bees (in a careful move) from a place where there is a dearth of flowers to a place where there is an abundance can be a healing thing. Bees that sit around with nothing to do tend to build up pathogens, while those which are busy tend to get rid of the pathogens. Likewise the loss of some of the field force could be assumed to be a bad thing, but if the loss is almost all old bees with high levels of parasites and pathogens, it could be a cleansing thing. One of the most consistent results of moving bees frequently, is that the queens are kept laying. This means that the hive average age of worker bees is younger, which is a good thing. It also means that the queens have a shorter productive span, which could be seen as a negative, unless more frequent requeening is done. There are just too many variables here for an absolute statement to be made.

Furthermore there is an underlying tone in such assumtions above that commercial beekeepers are the "bad" guys. But bees are moved as often, in sometimes in a lot worse circumstances, than the bees that are trucked by the commercial guys. I once was in Asheville, NC during a time there was a statewide quarantine on bees entering the state. It was thought that this would prevent the state's bees from getting varroa. I observed a fellow with an SUV containing two beehives. In talking with him, I found that he was a hobby beekeeper from Savannah, Georgia, who had a summer home in Asheville, and always brought his bees up with him for the summer. He had no knowledge of the quarantine (and he didn't care). North Carolina got varroa mite infestations just about as fast as neighboring states did, despite the quarantine which commercial beekeepers observed. Bees moved anyway. Pollinator 03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Possible At Least Partial Remedy?

Modern Industrial Agribusiness is a monoculture that is also herbicided, pesticided, genetically modified and just generally screwed with. Not a lot natural about it. If I were a bee I'd keep my distance too.

Anyway, there is at least one thing that could be changed relatively easily that might possibly help the situation to improve (if it's not too late), the routine planting of native wildflowers throughout crop fields as an attractant to bees (honeybee and native) because it is healthier for the bees to have this varied diet. In the wild bees draw pollen from many different species of flower in a given field. In fact I'd speculate that planting wildflowers throughtout crop fields would actually INCREASE pollination (by attracting native bees) and native bee numbers. Perhaps our monocultural industrial agriculture is as draining on the bees as if we were expected to subsist on only one kind of food like, say, pasta (which we may be doing in the not-too-distant future). Re this, I emailed the question to an agricultural librarian at the Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center at Ohio State University who forwarded it on to Dr. James Tew, of OSU Department of Entomology and apiculture specialist. His reply was, among other things,

You are correct in your concerns about a varied bee diet. Bees do require that in order for the colony to prosper. I sense that commercial growers would not go to the expense of adding a wildflower mix to their monoculture for no other monetary reason than to help bees. No doubt a common argument would be that the pollination rental fee is their contribution to bee management. Upon leaving the commercial fields, the beekeeper would be responsible for providing the varied diet to his bee colonies you have described. I am not opposed to your suggestion and cannot say whether or not it would work, but I can say that it's not presently done.

Frankly, I find that hard to fathom. But about industrial agriculture not being interested in the program my guess is that when the alternative is no crops they may change their tune.

I hate to recommend non-native flowers but as I work in plant nurseries and if I WAS going to recommend one that honey bees seem to adore it would be lavender (Lavendula). Maybe this is because the native home for both (lavender and honey bee) is the same general landmass. Perhaps they evolved together. The same goes for rosemary and honeysuckles. Honeybees love 'em. So I guess a good way to attract honeybees is to find aromatic plants that are also native to the same European/Mediterranean region that honeybees come from (though those places are also suffering CCD) and then plant them throughout these fields.

For this to work though, non-grain Roundup Ready (GMO) Crops would have to be dispensed with since they are the quintenncential monoculture. Herbicide is sprayed to put down all plants except the crop plant itself [24].

But who wants 'em anyway. I mean they are even a suspect in CCD. 4.246.206.160 06:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's actually easy to fathom; placing OTHER plants in the middle of your monoculture has three negative impacts: (1) can't use herbicides any more (2) likely to complicate the logistics of crop maintenance (planting/watering/harvest), and (3) if the flowers planted are attractive to the bees, then the pollination of the CROP will suffer. All are counter to the interests of the grower. As for GMO crops being "suspects" in CCD, there aren't data to back this up - and, in fact, the number of things that are counter-evidence to this theory are diverse and considerable; of all the genuine competing theories presented in the article (i.e., not including phones), the case for GMO crops is by far the weakest. If nothing else, CCD has been around for decades, and GMO crops have not. Dyanega 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
can't use herbicides any more, that may be a negative to you but organic agriculture is able to manage just fine, and they are booming. likely to complicate the logistics of crop maintenance (planting/watering/harvest), I doubt that very much. Most native wildflowers, especially in the west, are both drought tolerant and can take water too. And if people get some wildflowers in with their crops, so what? Obviously you only plant safe varieties, and you experiment a bit. if the flowers planted are attractive to the bees, then the pollination of the CROP will suffer. Really? Have you tried it? How do you know that it wouldn't attract honey bees including natives? I don't think the above poster meant that one would plant a field with tons of wildflowers so as to out-compete the crops, but perhaps with scattered flowers and clumps. I think I'll take the prof's side quoted above on this, that bees do require a varied diet and that it's not being done. BTW, what's YOUR suggestion for CCD?
About GMOs being cleared in CCD, perhaps so but to my mind that remains to be seen. I don't think anyone is solely blaming GMO's but they may yet turn out to be a contributing factor. No one can afford to be too smug about this crisis.
Can't stand these know-it-alls who don't. 66.14.116.114 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
(Since you insist on insults...) Then what about critics who know even less? Apis mellifera is one of the best-studied species of insects in the world, and we know what they do under various circumstances because we have observed and documented it, and there have been decades of experiments working out the details. Since individual honey bees do not make independent decisions regarding choice of plants, colonies of honey bees will forage preferentially on the plant that is most attractive to them at any given time; so if there are only two plants available and they differ in quality, the vast majority will only forage on the better one. That means that if your "wildflowers" are more attractive than the crop, then there will be fewer bees pollinating the crop - in proportion to how abundant the wildflowers are, up until the point where the wildflowers alone are enough to support the bees. If you only have a few "scattered flowers and clumps", then the effects will be trivial, but so will the benefits to the bees. If the crop is more attractive than the wildflowers, then the wildflowers are completely superfluous. If native bees aren't attracted to a crop to begin with, then interspersing wildflowers cannot make the crop any more attractive, and can only make it less so. You can't "trick" bees, native or otherwise, into visiting plants they don't like to visit, unless you force them by giving them NO OTHER choices - and this is, in fact, how a lot of honey bee pollination is accomplished. Planting wildflowers in with your crops is one of the worst possible strategies one can imagine in terms of crop pollination under these circumstances. What bees require, and what is best for commercial-scale pollination, happen to be different things. Remember, the grower's sole concern is for their crops; unless the bees die before the crops have been fully pollinated, they're not going to worry about whether or not the bees are nutritionally satisfied, since they're just renting them. As for the other points you dismiss, just ask farmers if they agree with your assessment that plants growing in the same field as their crops are not a drain on their resources, and an impediment to working in those fields. Organic farmers still try to suppress weeds, just not by using herbicides. There are good reasons farmers don't tolerate weeds. Dyanega 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to grow enough wildflowers to lure the bees and give them some variety without out-competeing the crops. But maybe you're right, and it'd just be a waste of time and effort. Yet something's obviously wrong in the way it's currently being done. And we're not talking a big risk here in that trial are we? If it works great, if not then it doesn't. Rather than dismissing it out of hand perhaps it's worth a try? I am only suggesting this, I'm not a bee expert.

By the way, I'd thought I read that some farmers do plant a variety of other flowering species for just this reason but in spots on the perimeter of their crop fields. The difference here would be growing them scattered throughout so as to lure them to the interior.

Farmers don't tolerate weeds because they want a "clean" crop. 4.246.206.10 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientsts agree that a varied diet (not the monoculture many survive on) is necessary: "If there is not a common thread, such as a pathogen seen in many of the affected colonies, Professor Eric Mussen of UC Davis said he is convinced that a nutritional deficit helps explain how the honeybees were weakened by the smorgasbord of potential causes of death. That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens, he said ... "In many situations the bees were weakened by not being able to get a nice mix of nutrients that they needed from the pollens, and I think that weakened them," he said. "Under those circumstances you can take all the other (causes), and there are plenty of them, and combine them together and down go the bees" [25]. 4.246.205.86 16:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate: "What bees require, and what is best for commercial-scale pollination, happen to be different things". No one is disagreeing that honey bees do better if they can gather pollen from multiple plant species. But using them to pollinate crops at maximal efficiency REQUIRES that they NOT visit species other than the crop. No one who is paying $80 per hive to rent honey bees is going to want them visiting other plants. Why would they care if, three months after the beekeeper leaves, those colonies die? Dyanega 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"What bees require, and what is best for commercial-scale pollination, happen to be different things ... Why would they care if, three months after the beekeeper leaves, those colonies die?" I would argue the opposite, that what is good for bees IS also what is good farmers and the evidence of that is precisely what we are now witnessing - colony collapse disorder. If farmers want to be so narrow minded and shortsighted about bee's needs as to disregard them what are they going to do when there aren't any left to pollinate their crops? If money is all that matters it's in their best interests to want to do all they can to protect the bees. 4.246.207.229 22:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting comments from this article:

Just like humans, healthy honeybees need a varied diet, Conrad said. That’s something they rarely get in the affected states, where migratory beekeepers truck them from farm to farm following one crop throughout the year. In many instances, the kind of pollen they are following is not even nourishing to the bees, he said. In California, for example, bees visit one almond farm after another, feasting on what Conrad classified as a kind of junk food. "Almond pollen is mildly toxic to bees," he said. "It’s like going to MacDonald’s every day for a month. Your health is going to get affected and your immune system is going to get weakened. And that makes you more liable to get some other sickness or disease." Jan Louise Ball, who has kept bees in Addison for 10 years, shares a similar outlook on the diet of honeybees. "A species like the bee cannot live on all Big Macs," she said. "I order new plants every year. Everything I buy is with the honeybee in mind."

For an idea of what a junk food diet does to humans see the video Supersize Me [26]. 4.246.207.117 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA comment

Inline citations go directly after the punctuation; go through the article and fix all occurrences. Also, I saw at least one "citation needed" tag, either remove the statement or add a source for it or the article may be quick-failed by whoever reviews the article. --Nehrams2020 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case of article title

A Google search shows both uppercase ("Colony Collapse Disorder") and lowercase ("colony collapse disorder") spellings of this disorder. The latter seems more logical to me, as such phenomena generally are not proper nouns. Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The original scientific literature refers to it in uppercase, and the original usage is preferred. Dyanega 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "MT"?

What does MT in the following phrase mean: "due to MT exposure from the DECT base station "? Dougher 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question. An editor changed that without any explanation at some point, guess I missed it. Dyanega 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

I have read through the article and it meets GA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive, and is well referenced. Well done - • The Giant Puffin • 09:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the contributors to this article. It's really hard getting good, well referenced information out there while quickly.  kgrr talk 13:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] delist this article

this article needs a review of it's good article status. i feel like unneccessary weight is put on the mysterious disappearence. i read checked the first ten or so references and most of them speak of dying and sometimes disappearing bees. the article launches right in with saying: CCD has also been called Vanishing Bee Syndrome (VBS) and quotes a bbc article that states It is officially called Colony Collapse Disorder, but a more pithy way of describing it would be Vanishing Bee Syndrome. that is kind of stretching it in my book. the symptoms for cdd are taken from an online survey that might have been designed for all i know to find out if cdd really exists. that apocryphal einstein quote about human being disappearing 4 year after the bees adds to the eery feeling. please something more serious.trueblood 18:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:What is a good article?? If so, which positive criteria, specifically, do you think this article fails to meet - or, conversely, which negative criteria do you see it as possessing? I agree that the bbc link adds nothing to the article, and will remove it, but other than that, can you point to anything specific? Dyanega 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
hm from the list of criteria, i 'd say the article is weak on 2 a-c on the question if cdd really exists as opposed to just bees dying for numerous reasons, the ref for the syptoms seems weak. in the section scale the following passage sounds like OR to me:It is far from certain however that all reported cases are indeed CCD: there has been considerable publicity, but only rarely was the phenomenon described in sufficient detail. Consider the CNN article referenced above:

"Beginning in October 2006, beekeepers from 24 states reported that hundreds of thousands of their bees were dying and their colonies were being devastated." But as opposed to what the passage seems to imply, presence of numerous dead bees is a near-certain indicator that CCD is not the cause of a bee colony's "death". Of course, as individual bees are dependent on the colony's social network for survival, they will die off if colony health is low—but in CCD, they generally do so away from the hive, and to the observer, they simply vanish without a trace. As of early May, no confirmed CCD cases seem to have occurred in Germany.[73]trueblood 14:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is well-referenced, and 2 a and b are quite adequately satisfied. Taking one side or the other as to whether CCD "really exists as opposed to just bees dying for numerous reasons" is not something the article SHOULD do, because that is a matter of opinion! Read WP:NPOV, if you aren't familiar with it. Your point about the quoted passage representing OR bears a little scrutiny because it states "what the passage seems to imply" - and is thus an interpretation, rather than a statement of fact. However, the closing sentence about no confirmed CCD cases is quite significant; the readers need to be aware that there are people who feel that not all of the claims out forward actually represent cases of CCD. I'll try to get this passage into better shape. Dyanega 01:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apocryphal quote

Is this section really helpful or necessary? The title itself basically says that it is unsourced, and it gives as a possible source Albert Einstein, who certainly wasn't an ecologist, a botanist, or an entomologist. Can we remove it? Makerowner 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it is universally associated with news articles dealing with CCD, it does still have a place here, otherwise I would agree; see comments above under "Famous or infamous?" Dyanega 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The section tends to reek of sensationalism, not to mention it is just plain inaccurate, but I have to agree that its use (overuse) in the popular media makes its inclusion an unfortunate necessity. Perhaps not necessarily in its current form? Bugguyak 03:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
the german wikiarticle quotes a Jerry Bromenshenk, Bienenforscher an der University of Montana in Missoula und Mitglied der amerikanischen CCD Working Group that according to the einstein institute in israel the quote is wrong (without reference) and quotes a article in the respected german weekly that the 'quote' is also nonsensical since honey bees came only with the europeans to the americas.trueblood 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but due to a large population growth and the need for lots more food westerners have unfortunately become dependant upon the european honeybee for their intensive pollination qualities. Actually though, much as I like h.b.s, I'd like to see native bees and other pollinators take back their natural role in the U.S. that was usurped by the introduction of the honeybee, or "white man's flies" as the native americans called them. 4.246.205.86 16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too starry-eyed. It's not gonna' happen. European honeybees may have been a minor cause of loss of native bees in North America in some cases. But the plow removed far more native bees. Then came increasing monoculture, removing more. Then urbanization and development, removing more. Finally came the widespread use of insecticides, for which the wild bees have no defender. Native bees need wild places, which are harder and harder to find. I've been watching honeybees and native bees for many years. The places where native bees are most common are the same places where honeybees are most common - places where there is plenty of forage and safety from pesticide misuse. Wherever a diversity of bee forage, you'll find honeybees working on one plant species and native bees working on another. So they are not competitors. ALL pollinators are needed. Pollinator 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So they are not competitors. I don't know, unless we are claiming that there are more wildflowers now than before the honeybees arrived they are competitors (well there is industrial agriculture and flowers sold in nurseries - all sprayed though). And remember that in drought years (which will increase due to climate change) there will be even less wildflowers to go around, "That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens...I am pretty concerned about it this year because, at Davis, in January we only had 0.17 of an inch of rain and we should have had 4 inches. The early mustard -- we never got it,' Mussen said." [27]. 4.246.204.97 04:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is virtually no evidence that bees ever compete for floral resources. The available evidence is that bees (EXCLUDING Apis and Bombus) are limited by the rate at which they can lay eggs, since bee eggs are among the largest insect eggs relative to body size, and take about two to four days to mature inside the bee. Generally, then, the fastest a bee can lay eggs is maybe one per day, or every other day. A typical native bee can gather all the pollen and nectar it needs to provision a cell in less than an hour, even at maximal levels of "competition" (only Megachilidae might be an exception to this, and even that would require documentation). Why, then, would anyone think that pollen is a limiting resource? The other thing is that native bees don't require a mix of pollens - Mussen was referring to honey bees, not native bees. The idea that bees "compete" for pollen is a myth, based primarily on the myopic and mistaken assumption that honey bees are "typical". Honey bees are aberrant and exceptional in so many ways relative to other bees that it borders on mind-boggling that they're actually related to other bees. Dyanega 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand your comments here. First that there is no competition between honeybees and native bees. The fact that they visit the same flowers at the same time (I've seen it myself) is by definition competition. And that native bees don't require a mix of pollens, I'd ask, why then do the same species visit a variety of wildflowers [28] (starting p. 5)? While it's apparently true that bees 'typically visit flowers from a single plant species during each foraging trip, which ensures that the correct pollen is transferred from plant to plant', their overall diets still require a mix of pollens from what I can gather. "In order to support the native bee community, a wealth of flowers is necessary. Unfortunately, heavily managed farm landscapes often lack the diversity and abundance of flowers that native bees require. By providing abundant and diverse pollen and nectar sources, a diverse community of native bee species will increase, adjacent crops may yield more, growers could rely less on imported European honey bees, and farm biodiversity and other wildlife species will benefit." [29]. 4.246.207.229 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I hate to put this so bluntly, but you are wrong in calling that competition. If I go to the supermarket, and my requirement is ONE gallon of milk, and I open the freezer at the same time someone else is getting milk, we *interfere* with one another, but we are not *competing* - the freezer contains 500 gallons of milk, each of us is only removing one gallon, and there are stockers behind the freezer who replace every gallon removed. That is exactly how pollen is taken from flowers by bees. Each bee has limited needs, the standing crop of available pollen is enormous relative to what the bees can gather, and the pollen is constantly replenished. Bees do NOT compete for pollen. It's like saying fish compete for water. Bees also don't visit one species on a trip to ensure that pollen is transferred; they do it because it's easier, or because they only use one species of plant. The vast majority of native bees are pollen specialists - they consume only one type of pollen to which they are physiologically and behaviorally adapted. That slide show you reference is misleading - when they say (for example) that "Andrena visit W, X, Y, and Z" that (1) does not mean that they are gathering pollen from all four plants ("visiting" could be nectar visits, or visits by males, which do not gather pollen), or (2) that any ONE species of Andrena is visiting all four - in fact, it is likely that there are about 30 species of Andrena involved, each of them visiting flowers only in one genus or family. Bees that can use pollen from multiple plant species, like honey bees and bumblebees, are a distinct minority among the 16,000 described bee species out there. Probably only around 10-20% of all known bees gather pollen from more than one plant family. The quote above is talking about bee diversity being supported by plant diversity - which reflects my point about specialization; if every plant species has 5-10 specialist native bees that visit ONLY that plant, then the more plant species you have, the higher the diversity of native bees will be. Look at a plant like creosotebush; it has some 40 specialist bee species associated - all living and foraging on the same plants at the same time. If the plants are wiped out, the bees are also wiped out - but there is no competition whatsoever in the system. Now, if you have a crop that is visited by native bees, and you saturate the crop with honey bees, to the point where they are gathering pollen as fast as the plants produce it, THEN you might have competition in that context. On the whole, that's going to be a very rare occurrence, if only because so few commercial crops are native plants visited by native bees and ALSO "saturation pollinated" by honey bees. In any given area, if there are some 200-300 native bee species, it's unlikely that more than a dozen or so will actually contribute to the pollination of crop plants - though, admittedly, for SOME crops (like blueberries and such) this can be all or nearly all the pollination the crops need. It all depends on the crop. Dyanega 02:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into a petty semantic debate but I'll quote this online biology dictionary: competition One of the biological interactions that can limit population growth; occurs when two species vie with each other for the same resource, so by this definition it is competition. Of course it is more of a competition when resources are limited but you'll notice that that's what I was refering to when I originally responded to Pollinator's competition comment. Remember the person I quoted above who said "That is because dry conditions, certainly in California, did not produce flowers in which bees find their required mix of pollens...I am pretty concerned about it this year because, at Davis, in January we only had 0.17 of an inch of rain and we should have had 4 inches. The early mustard -- we never got it"? Thus they are limited. And I said "remember that in drought years (which will increase due to climate change) there will be even less wildflowers to go around" well that will obviously increase the competition. About my included comment that bees 'typically visit flowers from a single plant species during each foraging trip, which ensures that the correct pollen is transferred from plant to plant' which you dispute, this is actually a quote from this USDA article Agroforestry: Sustaining Native Bee Habitat For Crop Pollination. I did not have it in full quotes because I italisized a section of it to highlight it thus changing it. But I think you are reading too much into that comment, it doesn't say that they are consciously trying to ensure pollination of a particular plant but that their visitation practices during a particular foraging trip ensures correct pollination. Your comment that "Andrena visit W, X, Y, and Z ... does not mean that they are gathering pollen from all four plants ("visiting" could be nectar visits, or visits by males, which do not gather pollen)" my understanding of pollination (pollination being the issue here) is that nectar visits are by nature also pollen visits as it rubs off on them while they are visiting the flowers. Is this incorrect? Next let's say that there are 16,000 species of bees out there (though the site I reference above says 20,000) but only 10 to 20% pollinate more than one flower as you say, that's still 1,600 to 3,200 whole species of bees to do the job. Anyway my basic point is that we need all bee pollinators, and should be doing all we can to encourage them rather than our present bee unfriendly practices (moncultures, pesticides etc). 4.246.207.112 05:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary says "vie with each other" - bees don't vie for pollen, any more than whales vie for plankton with other whales. There are LOTS of plankton-feeding marine organisms, but no one ever goes around saying they compete for plankton. Pollen does NOT limit population growth; parasites, predators, pathogens, nesting space, weather, and rate of egg producton can all limit population growth in bees, but pollen does not. If it is not a limiting factor, then - following that exact definition you gave - how can you claim there's competition? I hate to invoke expertise, but I am a published pollination ecologist, with several peer-reviewed papers on exactly this topic - TRUST me, bees don't compete for pollen except under very rare and unusual circumstances. That person you are quoting was talking about honey bees foraging in Davis. As for nectar visits being pollination visits, no, nectar visits are not necessarily pollination visits. The most dramatic example of that is honey bees visiting alfalfa flowers - they take the nectar, but leave the flowers unpollinated - which is why they have to use alfalfa leafcutter bees to pollinate that crop. If a flower species is pollinated by bees, then pollination is not "accidental" - it is typically accomplished specifically by female bees, in the act of gathering pollen. There are many, many flowers where a bee that simply wants nectar does not even contact the pollen-producing structures in the blossom. Some bees specifically cut the base of the corolla so they can suck the nectar out of the side of the flower, without accomplishing pollination. I'm not disagreeing about whether it's desirable to encourage native bees - I've been a vocal advocate of the practice for 25 years now - but the reasons I advocate it are not the same as you perceive them to be. Dyanega 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Actually, there is virtually no evidence that bees ever compete for floral resources" and "but there is no competition whatsoever in the system" Not to question your authority but have you seen this paper Competitive Interactions Between The Invasive European Honey Bee and Native Bumble Bees? According to this paper it's not that competition does not occur but that it has not been studied well yet. More: [30][31][32][33][34] See Abstract [35]. This site and this one reference the main article Honeybee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia by Sugden, E.A., Thorp, R.W. and Buchmann, S.L. (1996). Bee World 77: 26-44. Another article is Competition between honey bees and native bees in the Sonoran Desert.

These papers focus on competition between honeybees and natives as that is the most important to us. I assume that interspecific competition between natives have not been studied as much. And yes I am aware that there are also papers that claim that there is no real competition between these bees. But at the very least there is another view on this issue than what you've said. Again I mean no disrespect but perhaps in the face of CCD we need to reevaluate our assumptions and practices. You can have the last word on this. 4.246.207.1 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider what is said in the paper by Thomson, which gives a nice summary in the beginning: "While suggestive, such studies do not provide direct evidence that floral resources are limiting, or that Apis reduces the fitness or population sizes of native bees (Roubik 1986, Butz Huryn 1997). Only a handful of studies have attempted to measure the impacts of Apis on any aspect of reproductive success for a native bee species (Roubik 1983, Sugden and Pyke 1991, Goodell 2000), with little clear evidence of competition emerging." I had not seen Thomson's paper prior to this, and - until so - my understanding was exactly as summarized: lots of people have suggested competition, but no one had ever produced actual evidence that floral resources were limiting. Even Thomson's paper points out that it is not simply the presence of honey bees, but proximity, that leads to a depression of resources for nearby bumblebees. I'm not disputing the conclusions Thomson has come to, except that I don't believe one can extrapolate from the effects of bumblebees being near honey bee hives to any overall competitive milieu. Being near an Apis colony is, in fact, an unusual circumstance for native bees to encounter, and - again - Apis is an extreme oddball in how it utilizes resources. Bumblebees are similar, though not quite so extreme, and the impact on bumblebees will be considerably greater than on other native bee groups. Yes, there is a lengthy litany of papers claiming competition, but that does not mean they represent good science; it's easy to publish papers that uphold popular paradigms, because in academia, models and theories take precedence over empirical data (e.g., Hamilton's theory of inclusive fitness, which, after 40 years, has still actually never been confirmed empirically). I am a scientist, and just because a model based on a theory (competition, in this case) makes a prediction which is met does not, to me, constitute evidence; few scientists who publish regarding a paradigm ever allow for alternative hypotheses, and this is the case with all of the pollen competition studies to date. Dyanega 08:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP added this on the apocalypse quote section, so I moved it here since it 'may' warrant discussion: "Not true....this quote belongs to Charles Darwin". I personally think the entire section warrants deletion now that the media fervor over the quote has died down. Bugguyak 11:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steiner reference more appropriate than Einstein

In the organic agriculture world, a movement he was instrumental in creating, there is much mention of Rudolf Steiner's observation in 1924 that artificial beekeeping and especially management of queen bees would result in bees' disappearance in a century. Josef Graf's article at organicconsumers.org gives a long list of the invasive management measures that seem to fit Steiner's warning: [36]. --jb 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While Graf is eloquent, he evidences a lack of critical thinking right in the introduction of his article, where he gives credence to EMF (which is preposterous) and GMO effects (which are impossible to link to CCD, given that CCD occurs in areas with no GM crops, and CCD dates back to the 19th century). Should someone formally come forward and state that one of the factors Steiner listed (as capable of causing the demise of honey bees) is involved in CCD, then it would be quite appropriate to include a reference to Steiner, and I hope you can track down the original reference; Graf's analysis is not particularly scholarly or objective, however, and as a secondary source, should be avoided. Dyanega 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I searched Steiner's book online and, unless he made the prediction somewhere else, the closest I could come to the above were these comments (it should also be stated that he didn't appear to be completely against the artificial breeding of bees, he had a wait and see attitude but leaned against it):
"But the strong bonding of a bee generation, a bee family, will be detrimentally effected over the longer period ... But we'll have to wait and see how things will look after fifty to eighty years. Certain forces that have operated organically in the beehive until now will become mechanized, will in themselves be mechanically carried out. It won't be possible to establish the intimate relationship between a queen bee you have purchased and the worker bees the way it would arise all by itself in nature. But at the beginning, the effects of this are not apparent ... But nevertheless it doesn't hurt to be conscious of the fact that by introducing a mechanical, artificial element, we are actually disturbing what nature has produced in such a wonderful manner." I think that his worry was not misplaced. 4.246.205.110 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The real essence of what Steiner had to say was that if humanity continues to work with the bees in the artificial manner that they are using, then we will see their disappearance in fifty to eighty years. Insofar as this be so, most of the hundreds of articles and studies on the disappearing bees miss the target - humanity's overall interference. Please read the analysis in the article, as posted on organicconsumers.org - Why the Bees are Dying - and how to bring them back. [37]Josefgraf (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)josefgraf.

I read your analysis, and stand by my comment above: "Graf's analysis is not particularly scholarly or objective, however, and as a secondary source, should be avoided." There are lots of people with opinions, but not all of them merit inclusion in Wikipedia, I'm afraid - especially on topics such as this one, which requires carefully drawing distinctions between peer-reviewed science and pure speculation. Objectively speaking, there are greater and more fundamental questions regarding humanity's ability to survive the next 50-80 years than there are regarding the survival of Apis mellifera. Remember, the western honey bee still lives in the wild in its native range over much of the Eastern Hemisphere, unaffected by beekeeping practices. Dyanega (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Solution?

It looks like the USDA is acknowledging that nutrution is probably a big factor in CCD (along with pesticides, pathogens and parasites).

Mussen, and two researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s bee research center at Tucson, Ariz., agree that nutritional deficiency is likely a stress factor. Honeybees were lacking a good mix of pollens, according to Mussen, who is based at UC-Davis. "It may be a malnutrition stress situation. Pollen is where honeybees get important proteins, fats, minerals, and vitamins" ... Dry conditions in many parts of the country last fall reduced good nectar flow, so fewer good fall pollens were taken into colonies. "Bees rely on fall pollens to rear a brood and take them through the winter. It was a hard fall, followed by a warm winter, and bees were out flying. There weren’t any resources (food) out there, so the bees were burning up flight muscles"[38]

Their solution to the nutrition problem seems to be he creation of a diet supplement called the "Tucson Bee Diet" and to be called "MegaBee". It will first be distributed to major honeybee supply houses in 50-pound bags [to be either a liquid or paste]. Beekeepers then add their own sugar syrup to the mix. Pound for pound, the supplement is more digestible than natural pollen, Wardell says. I note this comment from the article, As much as U.S. agriculture needs honeybees, it’s very challenging to find areas where you can sufficiently feed bees on natural pollen, particularly during times of the year when you can have 8,000 to 10,000 colonies in a single area waiting to be moved into a crop like almonds.

Again I would suggest the simple addition of wildflower seed mix to a farmer's fields, say, starting at 5% of seeds planted. Or under a canopy of existing nut or fruit trees. As for reducing the pollination of the main crop I don't buy it. In my area it is being done with mustard growing under bountiful nut trees. This supplement, while possibly good, is untested for the long term (only four years so far) and is an unnnatural way to for bees to feed (Rudolf Steiner's concern). It's like putting out a plate of food for wild animals rather than let them eat the way they evolved to. 4.246.207.40 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A valid point - but birds flourish when given the opportunity to have food from feeders, with no side-effects that I know of. Inhuman14 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard that birds are disappearing too? [39] 4.246.207.117 15:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GM crops, Roundup and Europe

Nice long article over at science magazine about some new researchers (from my eyes) getting into the search..... Not-So-Elementary Bee Mystery Detectives sift clues in the case of the missing insects by Susan Milius.--Smkolins 13:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to take exception to a statement in the aticle: "European beekeepers have now reported die-offs too, and GM crops aren't grown there".

Oh yes they are. In fact there are secret tests all over the world including the U.S. [40][41][42]. Additionally non-GM plants are becoming GM through "genetic contamination" throughout the region [43][44]. Until the biotech giants reveal where those tests are taking place no one can rule out GM. I also have to wonder if anyone's testing for exposure to herbicides. Monsanto has recently introduced their "Flex" version of Roundup which can be applied even more liberally and frequently. 4.246.205.2 07:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, an unforseen consequence of glyphosate in their Roundup herbicide recently discovered is fatality to frogs [45] and keep in mind that hundreds of million of acres of GM crops worldwide are sprayed with the stuff [46]. And "Glyphosate ... is absorbed by the foliage and translocated rapidly throughout the plant" [47]. "Residues of the commonly-used herbicide glyphosate have been found in a variety of fruits and vegetables. Residues can be detected long after glyphosate treatments have been made. Lettuce, carrots and barley planted a year after glyphosate treatment contained residue at harvest" says Caroline Cox, staff scientist for the NCAP (Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides) and editor of the Journal of Pesticide Reform [48] See also [49] under Accumulation in Confined Rotational Crops. Also see NCAP's glyphosate factsheets [50]" (copied from [51]. Am I saying that Roundup is the cause? Nope, just wondering if it may be a contributing factor which should be studied. 4.246.203.96 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such quote in the article. Please do not fabricate non-existent quotes and then try to dispute them. The article gives citations, and if you wish to dispute them, then produce counter-citations. The closest actual quote in the article is: However, similar massive bee die-offs (or disappearances) have been recorded for decades prior to the introduction of these crops, and also have been reported in areas in Europe and Canada where there are no GM crops grown at all.[6] Please note that it says "areas in Europe and Canada where there are no GM crops grown" - which is NOT akin to saying that there are no GM crops grown in Europe. More to the point, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to promote your political causes and personal theories.WP:NOT Dyanega 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Um Dyanega, look again. The link is [52] what Smkolins provided. Go ahead, click on it. The entire paragraph reads "A USDA research plan, released in July, raises another question about the genetically modified crops: European beekeepers have now reported die-offs too, and GM crops aren't grown there" . I believe an apology is in order. Additionally, its fine if you want to be rah rah for biotech but lots of people have concerns about it. And secret tests do occur, a researcher may not know exactly where they are. For you to suggest that I cannot ask legitimate questions on the talk page is out of line IMHO. There are no sacred cows where an issue like this is concerned. 4.246.203.33 05:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
When I read YOUR comment, I thought you were talking about the Colony Collapse Disorder article (for which this is the discussion page), not the citation linked by Smkolins, which I didn't even look at. I don't give a crap about biotech one way or the other - what I object to is politics being inappropriately inserted into a WP article. As it is, there is way too much "beekeeper's opinion" cited here and not nearly enough actual research into CCD. In all fairness, the entire section on GM crops should be minimized, since CCD does apparently date back 100 years, which effectively eliminates it as a possible explanation, along with climate change, cell phones, and pesticides. You're not asking legitimate questions about CCD, you're asking legitimate questions about your personal list of environmental concerns, and trying to find some tenuous connection by which you can link them to CCD and insert them into this article even if they don't belong. That's not a legitimate form of scientific inquiry, and has nothing to do with "sacred cows" - it's politics, and doesn't belong here until and unless someone publishes statements where they EXPLICITLY link it to CCD. Dyanega 07:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No apology. That's okay. Is it politics to question whether the other issues mentioned might be aggravating factors? I think not. And apparently neither does science since scientists are studying the possible links to GE crops, climate change and pesticides etc. If science has not yet found the culprit then these cases are still open (with perhaps the exception of cell phones which was based on a misunderstanding or obviously nutball suggestions - e.g. the "rapture", though EMFs are still an open question). YOU however, as self-appointed censor of the page, apparently want to remove dissussion of any other than those hypotheses with which you personally agree. The answer to CCD may not be found any time soon, in the meantime until science as a whole "explicitly" RULES OUT a particular hypothesis it is appropriate to keep everything on the table and not attempt to stifle inquiry because it might upset one's pet ideas. By the way I'm moving this argument out of the middle of my previous comments. 4.246.201.14 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and just to address a couple of your comments "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to promote your political causes and personal theories" "you're asking legitimate questions about your personal list of environmental concerns, and trying to find some tenuous connection by which you can link them to CCD and insert them into this article even if they don't belong. You'll notice that I did not include the above comments about herbicides into the main article since a possible link is not being studied yet AFAIK. I kept it to the talk page. You don't even want it there though. 4.246.201.14 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "GM crops" are not the same thing as "Bt crops that are visited by honey bees"

There is no reason to include, in this article, any references to the GENERAL use of GM crops in agriculture, anywhere, whether it's secret or public, private or commercial, if the reference cited does not specifically mention crops visited by honey bees, AND carrying the Bt genes. There are many types of crops modified in OTHER ways besides inclusion of the Bt toxin, and those crops are completely irrelevant here because no one in the scientific community has linked them to CCD. Including such references to non-Bt GM crops and implying that they might affect honey bees constitutes original research - it is a new theory, in effect, being proposed by the editors, and that is a violation of WP policy (WP:NOR). The issue in THIS article is whether Bt crops affect honey bees. If the references you wish to add do not specifically refer to Bt crops that are visited by honey bees, then the information, while interesting, is best included in the Genetically modified food article. Dyanega 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you see, part of the problem here is that of the secrecy surrounding the GM trials. According to the report Manufacturing Drugs and Chemicals in Crops [53]
Even if people knew where the field trials were, in most cases they would not know what was being grown there. This is because the identity and/or source of the biopharmaceutical or biochemical gene(s) is almost always claimed as "confidential business information" (CBI) of the applicant ... This excessive secrecy was criticized by an expert committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that recently reviewed the USDA’s performance at regulating transgenic plants (NAS 2002, p. 177). The committee found that the broad use of CBI not only impairs the public’s right to know, but also hampers scientific peer review of APHIS decisions: "The committee finds that the extent of confidential business information (CBI) in registrant documents sent to APHIS hampers external review and transparency of the decision-making process. Indeed, the committee often found it difficult to gather the information needed to write this report due to inaccessible CBI." (NAS 2002, Exec. Summ., p. 11)
The site mentions more than 300 secret field trials in the US alone. Which plants have been modified to contain the Bt gene? This site mentions corn, cotton, potato and tomato. This site says "other Bt-producing crops have been field tested in the United States, including apple, canola (rapeseed), cranberry, eggplant, poplar, rice, spruce, tomato and walnut". I've also seen tabacco mentioned. What else, who knows? I think it's safe to say that bees visit these plants. According to this article Bt-11 is legal in Europe. If you can get the biotech giants to reveal what they are planting and where then researchers would have a clue what to look at. Until then I think that the GM link is fair.
No offense but what I find puzzling is that we know that a researcher must be open minded, yet reading through the talk page you seem awfully quick to dismiss GM crops (and other possible contributing factors), when science has not yet. Again I am not claiming that there is a definite link, merely trying to get more info on a possible suspect for the article. 4.246.203.208 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I understand all of that, and that's exactly why you cannot include it. You are doing ORIGINAL RESEARCH and putting it in the article. That is a direct violation of WP policy. PLEASE STOP. Read WP:NOR and learn how WP editing works. When you find a paper LINKING a crop to CCD, then that would be fine if you put it in, since that's what the article is here for - but your personal worries about GM crops are not the topic of this article. Dyanega 08:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is it that you claim is the OR I'm trying to include? The possible connection to Bt is being studied (and is already in the article) so that's not OR. Is it the one sentence inclusion of information that there are lots of secret GM test plots in Europe (and globally) that likely include Bt? I provide sources for that. Is it my one sentence clarification of the line "have occurred in Europe and areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown" which inaccurately, at least as far as Europe is concerned, leaves one with the impression that GM crops are not grown in Europe therefore GM crops cannot be connected to CCD since there is CCD there? Why would you want to leave people with that false impression? 4.246.202.90 16:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
One case of OR is making a connection between NON-Bt GM crops and CCD, evidenced by your failure to recognize that the quote you seem intent on manipulating does NOT refer to "GM crops" - it refers specifically to Bt crops that are potentially visited by honey bees, and the quote should be left alone. Second, "Secret test plots that likely include Bt" are NOT being linked to CCD by anyone in the scientific community - since no one can give the locations of these plots, which Bt crops they contain, or the proximity of honey bees to these secret plots, there are NO DATA that could potentially be used to make such a link - connecting this to CCD is innuendo that YOU, as an editor, are placing into the article which is NOT reflective of mainstream opinion regarding CCD. That is defined as OR. Given how little attention the "Bt crops" theory seems to be getting among the scientific community, in fact, the entire thing is bordering on becoming another "fringe theory" like the cell phones; Bt crops are not listed among the 9 theories that the USDA has put forth in its formal statement regarding possible causes. As such, the guidelines of WP:Fringe may also come into play here, and I'm tempted to reduce the entire Bt section of the document, rather than augmenting it as you are suggesting. Dyanega 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, "the quote [I] seem intent on manipulating", as you put it, was not in quotation marks indicating that it was a quote until just yesterday (after 4 1/2 months) so I was NOT "manipulating" it. You will also note that my paraphrase did not include quote marks thus I was not changing a quote. In fact it was you who changed the wording of the "quote" on April 3 to include the word "areas". I included the additional word "certain", as in "certain areas". This is the second time you have wrongly accused me of dishonesty.
Second, I said crops instead of Bt crops because no one knows what is being grown in those test plots but it is very likely that they include Bt crops. However even if we left out the "secret GM trials" part Bt crops are still evidently being grown there [54] and they have been under study as a possible contributing factor. Third, Bt has been studied in relation to CCD and not completely ruled out yet therefore it is not out-of-line to provide information which is in the public domain that Bt crops ARE being grown in Europe (with sources) even if most people, including researchers, don't know it. Forth, the quote that says that Bt crops are not grown in Europe is IN ERROR. Certainly leave the quote in but CLARIFY IT. What is your problem with that? Fifth, I did not make a connection to these Bt plots and CCD, I merely provided information that they and other GM crops are being grown in Europe. So what? You are placing yourself as personal censor of information which is still under investigation. To me that smacks of someone with an agenda. Who are you to say the case is definitively closed on these cases? That's not our role here as editors. You'll note that I also provided information on climate change's possible link so my agenda is to help flesh out various areas under study for the article not just the anti-GMO one which you imply is my agenda, though providing simple information about it seems to be taboo. Curious. 4.246.200.86 21:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The role of an editor is NOT to "provide information on ... possible link"s - the role of an editor is to determine what the relevant authorities are saying about a topic, and include sourced material from those authorities; when YOU start making the links, or exploring links which the relevant authorites have dismissed as not worth pursuing, and providing the evidence, then you are doing original research. Further, if, as you admit, "no one knows what is being grown in those test plots" then you CANNOT include it - not only is it not verifiable, but it is impossible to then link any of it to Bt! Given that no one has evidently confirmed that any of the reported cases of CCD in Europe were CCD, would you find it an acceptable compromise to include your information regarding Bt under a clause clarifying that it is still unknown whether CCD has ever been encountered in Europe? My problem with elaborating on that quote is that I'm not even sure the whole section belongs. In that context, can you see why elaborating on this whole thing runs against WP's "undue weight" guidelines (WP:UNDUE)? This is a peripheral theory, which the available evidence does not support, and it takes up more space in the article than ANY other theory, including all of the theories which the scientific community has decided are worth pursuing. A truly neutral editor would come in and remove nearly all of that material. You accuse me of censoring "information which is still under investigation" - but (1) I have not yet removed all of the "Bt crops" section, as justifiable as it might be to do so, and (2) none of the information you are looking to add relates to investigations of CCD; not only is it not directly related, but if there is indeed no CCD in Europe, then how does ANY of it pertain in ANY way, except possibly as evidence against a connection of Bt crops to CCD? and (3) the link you give, that you claim shows that "Bt crops are still evidently being grown there", does in fact specifically state that "an unauthorized strain of corn entered union countries in the forms of animal feed, corn flour and corn oil." In other words, your portrayal of this as evidence that Bt corn is being grown in Europe is false! Ultimately, you are extrapolating beyond what the relevant experts and authorities are treating as a signficant concern. If it is that you think somewhere, somehow, there WILL BE evidence linking Bt crops to CCD, then this is also something editors are explicitly warned NOT to do: here it explains "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis." If no one is discussing future research into the link between Bt crops and CCD, or even the likelihood of such a link existing, then for any editor to do so in the article is not appropriate. My "agenda" here is to keep the article as neutral as possible by adhering as strictly as possible to WP's policies - policies that exist for a reason; WP's role is to FOLLOW what the authorities are saying, not to ANTICIPATE them. If, and when, there is more research into the matter, yielding evidence for or against the link between CCD and Bt crops (or any other GM crops), then it will certainly be appropriate to include it. At this point, though, even if you could demonstrate that every single corn plant in Europe was full of Bt toxin, that would STILL not merit inclusion here until someone authoritative came forward and said that they had confirmed CCD in bees visiting corn in corn-growing areas in Europe; there needs to be something authoritative as to how and why a fact is important to investigations regarding CCD. As I said, much of what you are discussing is more relevant to the various articles on GM crops and you should consider contributing to those articles. Dyanega 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Further, if, as you admit, "no one knows what is being grown in those test plots" then you CANNOT include it - not only is it not verifiable, but it is impossible to then link any of it to Bt! I was able with difficulty to track down one of those field trials in Europe, in Spain specificlly, at eight different sites [55]. Again I strongly suspect that there are many more.
No CCD in Europe? I don't know, but it sure sounds like it to me Collapse of Honey Bees in U. S., Canada and 9 European Countries. But again I don't claim to be an expert. About your 'compromise'. This seems a bit odd; what I'm trying to include is factual information that corrects an error in a quote, I don't think it should be subject to making a 'deal'. CCD's possible link to Bt has been the subject of research for a reason. The plants have built in insecticide that has been demonstrably harmful to other insects [56][57] (yes I know this has been disputed). No one has yet found the exact cause or definitively ruled out the other reasonable suspects. They say that they believe at this time that so and so suspect is off the list but they are careful not to rule it out. Neither should we. I don't really want to carry on this debate forever. If you leave the quote in as it is I believe that it is misinforming. 4.246.205.208 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the unauthorized strain of Bt that is used for "animal feed, corn flour and corn oil" is Bt-10. But the link I provided also says "One type, known as Bt-11, has been legal for years in both the United States and Europe." That's what I was referring to - though possibly it's used for the same reason. This is the end of my discussion on this point. 4.246.203.240 03:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not an offer to make a deal, it was a question - made because I was getting the impression that you were applying a different standard to anti-GM phrasing of the article versus pro-GM phrasing, and was wondering whether you would find the latter as acceptable as the former. You claim you were "trying to include is factual information that corrects an error in a quote", and yet - prior to this very latest response - you had actually given no such information, properly sourced, nor demonstrated that the quote was in error. Since you DID just now provide some sourced information indicating that there are trials of Bt corn in Spain, then this can certainly be included as a counterpoint to the present statement, and I'll go ahead and add the information. Even if it had been ruled out, it would still bear some mention in the article; the article should discuss, at least in brief, any theories that have been put forth and taken seriously at any point. You'll note that while my personal preference would be to stick to only the issues still being investigated, I'm not editing according to my personal preference, but according to WP policy, as best as I understand it. As it stands, the GM issue is one that is given undue emphasis relative to how anyone involved in CCD research is treating it, and I'm simply trying to keep the content of that section limited to citations that are directly pertinent to honey bees and CCD - it's not censorship, it's keeping this article on-topic, and NPOV. Dyanega 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Dang! I hate it when I have to go back on my word. But I want to respond. First your inclusion of the cite is acceptable to me. Thank you. Here's another in Germany which sounds rather larger [58].
Next, what you wrote above, "You claim you were 'trying to include is factual information that corrects an error in a quote', and yet - prior to this very latest response - you had actually given no such information, properly sourced, nor demonstrated that the quote was in error." Okay, the words which you identified as a quote that I was correcting in the article were the following and also have been reported in areas in Europe and Canada where there are no GM crops grown commercially at all. Note that it says nothing there about Bt crops, just GM crops. Again, that is how it has read for the past 4 1/2 months. That is what I provided the links about secret GM crop trials in Europe for. Yesterday the "GM" was changed to "Bt" which I missed when I reverted. You are right that all Bt crops are GM crops but not visa versa. I should have been clearer about that in my comments above. Still I suspect that the secret GM field trials may contain many more such Bt plantings. Anyway, have a good one. 4.246.200.147 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CCD as environmental issue and concerns about secondary & primary sources

I've inserted some new material which has been - on the whole, rather correctly - copy-edited. I would just like to point out two issues: one edit removed the sentence making of CCD an "environmental issue", with the resume that this is contestable. Although the precise statistics may of course be contested, in particular by contrasting them with other statistics, CCB and bee population clearly is an environmental issue!

Second, concerning the reliance on scientific matters, hopefully we have editors more knowledgeable than journalists, but this has a side-effect: WP:TONE and over-reliance on specialized articles, which prevents a broad public article. If one news article states something uncorrectly, it is nice to have specialized editors around to point out an eventual mistake. However, specialized editors (or simply editors who have edited this article a lot) tend to forget about a newscomer's view on the article. In that sense, I think it would be helpful to have a better written introduction to the article, highlighting in general the importance of honey-bees and bees in general on the environment — perhaps by underscoring that honey-bees make only a small part of the total pollinating population.

The same goes for the subsection "Scale of the disorder" — and the seemingly contestable assertion by one editor that CCB has only been "proven" to have occurred in the US. How can that be so, if so many reports allege the existence of the same phenomena in various European countries, with disappearance in some local regions of up to 90% (a sentence which has been deleted)? If CCD designs, as it seems to do according to this entry itself, some strange phenomena, which (probable) various causes have not yet been identified, during which the honey-bee population decreases very fast, than evidently this phenomena is not restricted to the US.

When scientists have confirmed that cases matching the known CCD symptomology have been found in Europe, then the article can be changed to reflect it, by including appropriate citations. Until then, however, all we have are just "reports" and "claims" from secondary sources, and the article needs to reflect that fairly. Wikipedia is not here to validate claims made by reporters. Find a primary source for the 90% statistic, and include it with a citation, and I promise I won't delete it. Dyanega 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, a passage concerning French request for an investigation has been moved to "pesticide" section. This is a mistake, for two reasons: first, the request for a parliamentary investigation did not concern pesticide, but CCD. Second, the only part of this paragraph specifically concerning pesticide (Jean Glavany's outlawing of Gaucho) should, I think, be inserted in the subsection "Scale of the disorder" (or perhaps an "Overview" section) made, as it highlight the fact that CCD has led to political action and subsequent legislation — something which the reader shouldn't have to wait the second half of the article to learn.

As an example of the problem, this is a good point to discuss: the outlawing of Gaucho in France was NOT a response to CCD. CCD was described in 2006, the ban mentioned took place in 1999. If you wish to claim that it was a response to CCD, then you also must claim that CCD existed for many years before it was formally recognized. if so, then the explanation needs to go back WAY beyond 1999. There are two basic alternatives: either CCD is itself a very new phenomenon, or it is a very old phenomenon. Since there is no discernable difference between bee disappearances reported in the 1990's and the 1960's (and earlier), there is no justification for claiming that the 1990's reports of dieoffs WERE cases of CCD, and the 1960's reports were NOT. Those in the media who continue to promote pesticides and GMO and other recent phenomena as explanations are, in essence, looking to "have it both ways". The scientific community has not said, and does not appear likely to say, that these modern-era factors could possibly be the CAUSE of CCD, rather than contributing factors. If the popular press fails to make this distinction, there is no reason to perpetuate that failure here in this article. The aim of Wikipedia, when dealing with scientific articles - such as this one - is not to promote non-scientific explanations or opinions as if they are more important or more signfiicant than scientific opinions. Dyanega 20:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, perhaps the knowledgeable editors here could think about providing a quick, wide public, overview of the matter, which doesn't get lost in scientific reports. Although these are certainly important, one must keep in mind the nature of Wikipedia — this article shouldn't be restricted to scientifics. As an example of this, a sentence such as "They are responsible for pollination of approximately one third of the United States' crop species, including such species as: almonds, peaches, soybeans, apples, pears, cherries, raspberries, blackberries, cranberries, watermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and strawberries." should not be found in the last subsection, but rather on the overview. Journalists surely have their defaults, but they know how to find a hook for an article & to maintain his attention through-out the article, by concise and clear writing. Regards, and again thanks for your oversight! Tazmaniacs 19:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing cause

I noticed the following quote from footnote #11 (http://www.slate.com/id/2170305/ last paragraph of first page):

If anything, it's impressive that the honeybee has hung on in America for as long as it has. The commercial hives spend half the year sealed and stacked in the back of 18-wheelers, as they're schlepped down miles of interstate to pollinate crops around the country. During this time, they get pumped up with high fructose corn syrup, which keeps the bees buzzing and lively, but it's no pollen. And if a bee happens to get sick on the road, it can't self-quarantine by flying away from the colony to die. (In the wild, a bee rarely dies in the hive.) Add to the above the reduced genetic diversity resulting from the die-offs in the 1990s, and you have an insect living in a very precarious situation—where a new pathogen, even a mild one, could spell honeybee doom.

It would seem that this is an important issue to consider but I didn't find it in the article. If it's in the article, let me know where. If not, should we add it? It seems to be a simpler explanation than many. --Rcronk 19:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an entire section: "Bee rentals and mobile beekeeping". Dyanega 20:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops - Sorry - I searched for the wrong words and ended up not finding that section! I'm glad the issue is there - I'll investigate it and see if any additional information can be added to it. --Rcronk 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's with the sniffy tone?

The attitude that this is not a real phenomenon is outrageous. There is data to support CCD, the inane skepticism is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.161.187 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are these data published? If you have reliable sources with hard data (as opposed to anecdotes), then they should be included in the article, if they are not already. Until the scientific community says something is so, skepticism is entirely warranted. More to the point, some scientists have expressed skepticism; if there is skepticism, then the WP article should make note of this whenever there is something quotable. THE WP article should not pre-suppose any particular conclusion/resolution, but report what OTHERS have concluded, and the matter of CCD is far from resolved. For a parallel, look at irritable bowel syndrome in humans; up until around 1997, the condition was largely believed to be psychosomatic - in other words, treated with skepticism - and only the publication of peer-reviewed clinical studies has steered the medical community away from skepticism, though even now there is still some debate. The point is, if there had been a Wikipedia entry back in 1995 or so, it would have stated "Medical consensus is that IBS is largely psychosomatic and the evidence for its recognition as a valid condition is not convincing" - and it would have been presumptuous and inappropriate at that point to present IBS as if it had already been confirmed. It would likewise be presumptuous and inappropriate to imply in this article that CCD has been confirmed until and unless there are reliable sources to indicate this; as it says in WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". WP is also not here to support or promote theories, just report on them. Dyanega 17:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I too am puzzled. All I can find are spoof articles dated March 23rd 2007, DailyKos and other blog references on March 30th and 31st, and then a bulk of reports from all over the Internet dated April 1st 2007. It seems like a set up to an April Fool's prank, and each article I read uses an uncited report that cannot be found, or quotes a book that does not exist. Not only that but the writing style on many of the articles cited appears to be the same writing style, suggesting that a person or group of persons submitted the same article or variations on the article under different anonymous names. I would like to see the actual scientific reports so I can peer review them and see if the numbers add up. I am shocked that no information is given on how to replicate the experiment, how the data was collected, what the hypothesis test was, etc. You know all the steps the scientific method requires for a report to be considered valid. If none of the cited scientific reports can be found, and nobody can even mention how the experiments were performed, how can we logically consider them to follow the scientific method? Thomas Hard 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
http://emptv.com/view/honey-bees provides an alternative explanation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.98.150 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There is a lot of Mis-Information out there about this

I found a spoof or satire at Spoof.com and it appears that this is a joke that has been recycled all over the Internet as far back as I can find. Snopes investigated it on their forum but found that the Einstein quote wasn't made by Einstein and that this is more of an urban legend, and that even if bees die off there are other insects that pollinate plants. Even if he did say it Einstein is not an expert on the subject which makes this an appeal to false authority fallacy. Notice that nobody can decide on what is killing the bees, is it GM corn, pesticides, cell phones, fungus, global warming, cow farts, etc? Every time I hear the story it is from an uncited source and the story changes on what really kills the bees. Sometimes it is just honey bees, other times it is all bees, etc. I wonder if someone actually makes up Einstein quotes to be funny? Apparently they made up Al Gore quotes as well as far back as the year 2000? I find this entire article hard to believe as a result, I see bees outside my house and they seem to be multiplying and not dying off. I even talked to bee keepers in my area, and they claim their bees are not dying off. So really, what gives? There are many holes in this theory, and I'd like to find out more about it. Thomas Hard 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli virus

The idea that a virus is affecting the bees, leading to CCD, has been in the news a lot lately. Example: Israeli Virus Linked to Devastating Bee Disease.130.49.147.43 13:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Israel acute paralysis virus has now been incorporated wherever it is pertinent, thanks. It's not the first time someone has suggested a virus might be linked to CCD, and it has not yet been confirmed as a causative agent. Dyanega 04:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Israel acute paralysis virus does not correlate with CCD outbreaks in the Mid-Atlantic US. Outbreaks have been selective and follow heavy use of the popular commercial Imidacloprid insecticides. Neither the virus nor the use of Imidacloprid / Neonicotinoids have been confirmed as a causative agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepastor (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ]

[edit] Removing and adding

I am removing the line "Furthermore, the low occurrence of GMO fields in Europe makes it difficult for GMOs to account, alone, for all possible cases of CCD[2]". First the reference is in French, Second it is a popular periodical not a scientific publication, third the entirety of it's support for the above statement is one line: "planted surfaces [of GMOs] are very weak." As demonstrated by another contributer there are secret plantings in Europe, probably more than just a few and most people are unaware of them. This is fact. We are not here to debate whether or not these issues are actually the cause or not but to provide the information available. I am also adding some of the links provided before in support of this. 66.14.116.114 20:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember that this is an article about CCD, not GMO. Do not go off on a tangent. JRSpriggs 01:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No link from Bee Page

I was on the Bee page looking for information of ccd, I saw no mention of it or no link to this page. Could someone more familiar with the subject take the time and add information and a link in the main Bee page?Mantion 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, hate to point this out, but there are TWO links there to CCD, one of which is highlighted at the very top of the page. No information belongs on that page, since it only affects one species of bee. Dyanega 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wondering about Water

I've been wondering for some time about bees and related flying insects need for water. Many is the in the past time while I was out hiking that I have seen bees and wasps gathered around some pond of water getting a drink. As the article states 2006 was the hottest year on record with droughts all over. Could there be a connection? Perhaps these overworked little guys are simply not getting enough to drink. Do beekeepers place a water source nearby when they move them around or even check to see that there is one. If there is and if they are near agricultural fields is the water polluted with pesticide runoff? An anecdote: I once observed a bee drinking from a hummingbird feeder. As it continued it's abdomen turned progressively red with dye. It drank until full then flew off.

Since this is your own hypothesis, let me respond directly: honey bees do not store water in the hive, and water is not used for drinking, either - it is used for cooling the hive, not consumption. Bees get their water from nectar & honey, not plain water. Also, they are dying off during the winter - if they were getting killed by contaminated water, the losses would be occurring during the summer, when they're cooling the hive. Dyanega (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I think that they do drink [59][60], but evidentally was mistken that they use water internally. However since as you say they use it for cooling the hive and if there is a drought or heat wave wouldn't that present a similar problem for them? In other words, since they do need it shouldn't beekeepers assure a supply of water for bees?63.196.193.208 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your suggested "connection" was that contaminated water could be contributing to CCD - it can't since CCD happens during the winter - heat waves during the summer don't make the bees die during the winter. All of the workers that would have been exposed to contaminated water, or afflicted by a heat wave, are DEAD before the colony even starts preparing for winter. Dyanega (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No my suggested question was that since bees do need (for whatever reason) water shouldn't beekeepers assure a supply of water for them? 63.196.193.249 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is CCD a Real Phenomenon?

Another thing that puzzles me. I see that the main editor of this page seems to think that the whole thing, CCD, is a crock of s---. How does he explain all of the coincidental testimony coming in from beekeepers that their bees hve been disappearing? According to this report "between 651,000 and 875,000 of the nation’s estimated 2.4 million colonies were lost" during 2006-2007 [61]. "Beginning in October 2006, some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected during winter weather, the magnitude of loss suffered by some beekeepers was highly unusual" [62]. If this Wiki editor thinks that it's all a bunch of baloney wouldn't that bias tend to color his editing here, whereas Wikipedia editors should be neutral? Just wondering. 63.196.193.98 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The first of the references you cite is extremely interesting, and needs to be incorporated into the article extensively. Note that it specifically states that over 50% of the beekeepers who reported colony losses did not, in fact, have CCD (even though many of them evidently claimed they did). To quote: Of responding beekeepers reporting the number of hives containing few or no bees in spring, 23.8% met the specified definition of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), meaning that 50% of their dead colonies were found without bees and/or with very few dead bees in the hive or apiary. CCD-suffering operations had a total loss of 45.0% compared to the total loss of 25.4% of all colonies experienced by non-CCD suffering beekeepers. A neutral editor, and neutral article, does not pay undue attention to secondary sources such as the media - and there, in black and white, is evidence that beekeepers' testimony as reported by the media is NOT a reliable source of information (ironically, the entire paper is based on beekeeper testimony, too; this indicates that what beekeepers were telling the media and what they told the researchers were NOT always the same). Wikipedia is all about using reliable sources. Note also that the actual figures for percentage losses in this report are distinctly lower than the figures given by the media or the beekeepers, including the "30-90%" quote in your second citation. A neutrally edited article will often look biased to those, like yourself, who are giving undue weight to unreliable or biased sources. Dyanega (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Guess I'm not reading it the way you are. Here's what I read: "Nationwide colony numbers have dropped from 4.5 million managed colonies in 1980 to 2.4 million in 2005. These numbers are derived from USDA-NASS figures, which may underestimate the true decline of managed colonies ... Overall, the total losses in operations suffering from CCD were nearly twice as high (45.0%) as the total losses experienced in the non-CCD suffering group (25.4%; Table 3, Figure 2) ... Although losses were higher in operations that we considered to be suffering from CCD, losses were still generally high (many losing >30% of colonies) in operations that were not suffering from CCD. Among the reasons given for the losses, starvation, invertebrate pests, and weather were the most common. CCD was identified in 12 of the 13 states reporting with >50% of respondents from Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota having CCD".
They are using a definition of CCD a strict 50% or more loss and no dead in or around the hive. 49% (or the 45% the report cites) loses out. But 45% is pretty close. And who says nature keeps to such a strict quota anyway? Now maybe those other losses weren't by their strict definition CCD but those are still big bee losses (and they say as much). Again almost HALF of colonies lost between 1980 and 2005. As to the "unreliable or biased sources" you say that I am using in the second source, that source is none other that the USDA Agricultural Research Service. 63.196.193.208 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in that you're not reading it the way it was intended. The criterion is that of the colonies that a beekeeper lost, 50% or more need to have exhibited the symptoms of CCD. In other words, a beekeeper who lost only 10% of his colonies would be classified as a victim of CCD if all 10 colonies had lost their workers and had no corpses; a beekeeper who lost 100% of his colonies but had corpses in all of them would NOT be scored as a victim of CCD. The criterion is not how many bees or colonies were lost, but what percentage of the losses could be directly attributed to CCD and not plain old winter die-off. That's why there are such wildly variable figures, and so many questions about the European reports and such - many beekeepers who lost their bees in 2006-2007 jumped to ASSUME that every single dead colony was a victim of CCD, even if they had none of the symptoms. That's why I consider reports based on the beekeepers' opinions to be biased and unreliable - the USDA report figure is based on what the beekeepers claimed, but without any proof or hard figures from the beekeepers to show that those claims were true. If only 1/4 of the beekeepers losing bees were affected by CCD, as the report suggests, that's a LOT lower than the percentage of beekeepers who were claiming that they had been affected by CCD. It's called mass hysteria; someone hears of a disease or an outbreak of something, and then LOTS of people become convinced that they, too, are afflicted by it. Part of acting as a neutral and responsible editor is not simply accepting everything that folks are saying, and waiting until the facts become available - which is why I'm grateful you gave the link to that ABJ article; it has more facts in it than any other reference I've seen to date. Dyanega (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but still if all this "alarmism" and research to find a cause is all one giant fraud or massive case of incompetence on the part of the nation's (world's) beekeepers and leading scientific organizations as you suggest how is it that HALF of all bee colonies were lost between 1980 and 2005? Are you claiming that the USDA, the National Academy of Sciences etc. etc. are all either being duped or are deliberately misleading us? If so, to what end? I think you are being rather selective in the informtion you want to present but if you think that maybe you should include a section where you lay out the evidence for your idea. You could call it "Dyanega's hypothesis" of why everyone else is wrong and I'm right. Just curious, are there any leading scientific organiztions out there which also think that this is all being overblown? Any cites?

"Over the past two decades, concern has grown around the world about apparent reductions in the abundance of pollinators of all descriptions, with declines reported on no fewer than four continents. During this same time period in the U.S., the western honey bee Apis mellifera, the world’s premier managed pollinator species, experienced dramatic population declines, primarily as a result of the accidental introduction in the 1980s of two bloodsucking parasitic mites ... Even before CCD came to light, our committee estimated that, if honey bee numbers continue to decline at the rates documented from 1989 to 1996, managed honey bees will cease to exist by 2035 ... That honey bees are experiencing losses on an unprecedented scale, however, was essentially predicted by the report ... CCD has accelerated the rate of colony loss, and beekeepers as well as growers need immediate relief" [63] also [64][65][66][67]. 63.196.193.249 (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Half of all the bee colonies in the US were lost primarily due to beekeepers scaling down or going out of business intentionally, not death of colonies. A bee colony can be replaced very easily - you can, after all, just buy more bees, like beekeepers did this spring (there are just about as many colonies in the US at this moment as there were last year at this time, NOT counting the beekeepers who chose to close up shop rather than re-stock). This article is specifically about CCD, which is a phenomenon that no one understands, even now. CCD may have little or even nothing to do with the loss of bee colonies between 1980 and 2005 - and like any syndrome with no visible cause, bee scientists outside of MAAREC are still non-committal as to whether CCD is a genuine entity, or just a fancy label for something a lot simpler, like "stressed colony die-off". There are no "leading scientific organizations" that go around rendering their opinions of the latest news items in science. It was many years after AIDS was first documented before someone figured out the link to HIV, and there were plenty of skeptical scientists who weren't prepared to accept AIDS as a true disease until that link was established - but there are other human ailments which, to this day, STILL have not been shown to have a definitive cause (or, in some cases, treatment), and the way Wikipedia treats those is allowing for the possibility that they are NOT diseases. The goal of Wikipedia is not to follow or promote speculation, however widespread or popular, without indicating PRECISELY how speculative it is. CCD is still speculative, and it's not a matter of believing there's a fraud, nor do I have a "hypothesis" - it's a matter of reporting here what has actually been published, and there is precious little of substance so far. Dyanega (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you read the references you cite carefully, you'll note that they generally say the same thing I've been placing in the article - e.g., "It is not clear whether the current spate of losses, dubbed 'Colony Collapse Disorder' by some, is a new problem, a result of existing problems that have beleaguered the industry for a number of years, or both." and "It is important to bear in mind that our understanding of the current phenomenon is in a very early stage and will change as new facts become available." - and, regarding the losses of bees over the last few decades, those genuine losses that have occurred have been blamed pretty definitively on the invading mites, not on some "mystery ailment". The jury is still out on CCD, no matter how much the press may indicate otherwise, and Wikipedia articles should not indulge in pre-supposing what the jury will decide. Dyanega (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of what you said. But consider, if CCD is "a result of existing problems that have beleaguered the industry for a number of years" then you'd have to add in those other non-CCD losses with those attributable to CCD and then the loss stats would go even higher. We probably should be combining them anyway, (maybe science will give the whole bee loss phenomenon taken together a new name). IOW, whether or not it's technically CCD or some other cause(s), the bees we rely on are apparently going away, correct? As the continuation of the above sentence states "Whatever the cause, the losses are real" [68]. That's the basic issue and if true, and science is strongly implying that it is, should we not be doing all we can to remedy the situation by looking honestly at all possible causes and all possible remedies intelligently even if those answers might upset somebody's applecart? If you think it's not happening you'll need to provide credible sources that say that. But as long as science is strongly implying that CCD is occurring and is potentially an awful thing we need to edit the article accordingly (with caveats about the uncertainty factor of course). 63.196.193.204 (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is it specifically MAAREC then that you are claiming is exaggerating or misrepresenting the facts to the world? If so why? 63.196.193.57 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The loss stats are what the loss stats are - they won't go "even higher" - and it again neglects that most of the bee colonies lost this past winter have already been replaced. Bees are living organisms, and a renewable resource that can be renewed faster than they die off. Even those hardest-hit beekeepers who lost 75% of their colonies could potentially be back to full strength within a single season. The NET loss of colonies is, therefore, primarily a question of economics and scale; a beekeeper who loses 75% of his colonies may decide it's not worth his trouble to replace them, and THOSE colonies become part of the net loss. The basic issue is that we're losing beekeepers - if every rural family in America adopted a beehive, we could have 100 times more bees than we have today, but that would not make CCD any more or less real a phenomenon: the loss of bees is a larger and a DIFFERENT problem from the topic of this article, and this article needs to focus on CCD and not go off on tangents. You also seem to have the way science and evidence proceed turned around backwards - when a scientific claim is made, the burden of proof rests on those who made the claim, not on the rest of us. No credible sources have yet to come forth and state that CCD exists outside of the US, for example, and no credible sources have yet to give a specific causal agent or factor behind CCD. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of the US, or that it doesn't have a causal agent or factor. But WP articles reflect what the credible, authoritative sources have to say, and in that respect there is nothing that needs to be fixed in the present article. As for MAAREC, an objective editor understands the difference between a potentially biased source and an unbiased source - they are a potentially biased source of information. No one here, myself included, has accused them of exaggeration or misrepresentation. What they have said has been quoted, but it is not the job of an editor to treat what someone says as undisputed fact, when even the people saying it acknowledge that it's all preliminary and largely speculation. Dyanega (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it ths way, I, and perhaps many others, would be interested if you, being the apparent reigning expert of this page, but who doesn't buy the idea of CCD, could write a section outlining the evidence against it with credible cites. I don't ask as a challenge because I don't think you can do it but because it would fit in the the article. Lots of controversial articles have a pro and con section. This would also allow you to expand on this aspect of the issue, and combine it in one area, rather than scattered bits throughout, especially as you do seem to be eager to get this point across. 63.196.193.57 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll say it again: that is NOT how evidence works. This page is a place to put the evidence FOR CCD (and theories about potential causes) using credible cites. What evidence has been published by credible sources IS cited here already! What else needs to be added that I have missed? What additional cites do you believe need to be included here? It's not a matter of debate, or pro and con - if Wikipedia had existed when cold fusion was first reported, the way the article would have read is "Pons and Fleischmann claim to have demonstrated cold fusion" (and then given the citation to their work). THAT is an NPOV sentence, and would have been appropriate from Day One, even before there was any debate or concern over the accuracy of their report (what the article could NOT have said is "Cold fusion has been demonstrated by Pons and Fleischmann" - that is a statement of opinion, implying the truth of the claim). There doesn't have to BE a "con" side in order to follow NPOV. You seem to be saying that using NPOV phrasing is wrong, because you think popular opinion has accepted the phenomenon, but NPOV doesn't require an editor to give credibility to popular opinion, just to credible sources, and the credible sources are still non-committal on this issue, so the article will reflect this. For the record, since you seem so dead set on your belief that you understand my opinion, I do believe that there is a real phenomenon behind CCD - but that is totally irrelevant to how I or anyone else should edit this article. Just because I believe it's happening doesn't mean that I should abandon my objectivity. I'm a scientist and a bee biologist, I know what objectivity is and how to maintain it. I can believe in something and still be utterly skeptical. That's how science works. Dyanega (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Sorry to have troubled you. 63.196.193.57 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dyanega, it's time to stop feeding the troll. You've explained the issues more than clearly enough. Including the fact that neither you nor anyone else owns this article. The page represents our collective understanding of the current scientific findings on the topic. If the anon wants to challenge the existence or non-existence of CCD, he/she needs to go question the researchers publishing on the topic, not keep harassing the people reading this Talk page. Rossami (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. You, sir are a jerk. 63.196.193.57 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Just putting some personal thoughts here I have noticed (at least in my Area in SW USA) that ants and ladybugs are in short numvers too. Might be due to our dryer seasons, but I am concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.238.102 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Possible effects" section - what about the rest of the world?

This section deals exclusively with possible effects in the US, where - as is stated - "no native plants require honey bee pollination, except where concentrated in monoculture situations". However, the lead mentions that effects similar to CCD have been observed in much of Europe, where honey bees are native. I am rather surprised that a Good Article would have such an obvious omission; I hope someone will do something about this soon. 86.132.137.5 (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss the existence and impacts of CCD elsewhere, then please go ahead and include them. Most of the European literature seems to be focused on trying to link CCD to GMO crops, which has been completely excluded as a possibility by all of the leading CCD research groups, so adding more of the same hardly seems a fair and balanced representation of the issue (it already takes up more article space than it should, given how little support the theory has). Wikipedia gathers existing information, after all, rather than supplying original analysis. As an aside, I know of no plants anywhere in the world - US, Europe, or otherwise - that have ONLY honey bees as pollinators. That isn't to say that a few may not exist somewhere, but any such plants certainly don't appear to be documented, which suggests that they aren't major components of any ecosystem. Natural systems tend to have a fair bit of redundancy, and given that there are nearly 20,000 bee species other than honey bees, it should not come as a surprise that most non-agricultural plants would still get pollinated even if honey bees were to vanish. Dyanega (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK

The UK, not mentioned, calls this the Mary Celeste syndrom: BBC News details. --Wetman (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My error. Found it, hidden away. --Wetman (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PLease UPDATE

This section Colony_collapse_disorder#Possible_causes_and_research references a symposium scheduled for Dec 2007, which has passed. Can someone who knows this subject please address this? A GA shouldn't be 5 months out of date. ThuranX (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Haagen-Daaz is now sponsoring research; would corporate private funding be notable for this? ThuranX (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)