Here's a link:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/wildlife/article2449968.ece

Would we be willing to give up our toys to save the bees? (and, as a side effect, our own crops)

humans are affected too...so what talk of the bees?

While I have an open mind on he posibility that cell phone radiation may be slightly harmfull to the user, I strongly doubt it is causing bees to lose their way. Bees basically use the fact that scattered sun light (including the blue sky) is polarized to guide them to and from the current better nector sources.

When one bee finds a new good source, it returns to the hive and does a vigorious "dance." The length of the line dance between the turning points tells how far away the source is. The angle of the dance line wrt gravity vertical (inthe dark hive) tell the angle to fly wrt to the sun. On a fully cloudy day, when no sun can be seen, that is no problem for the bee. - Light coming only from the sun thru the clouds directly to the bee without scattering is the only light with zero polarization, so the bee knows where the sun is, despite the clouds.

I kept bees. (As a tax dodge, mainly to keep farms I had bought for later development into suburban lots with the low farm tax rate.) They are very interesting and complex societies. If you can keep a colliny, do so, even if you do not need the tax dodge. One of the best educational and profitable hobbies you will find with a sweet reward to boot! Also you will learn that if you can control your fear, not move quickly, etc. you will not get stung. - Good practice in mental disipline to let them craw on your hands etc.

It reads like a propaganda piece against cell phone use. If it is really interested in the bees, then shouldn't it actually talk about the bees? If anything, it should have only a short piece on the possibility of cell phone use causing cancer in humans (a claim which has been refuted, by the way), instead it segues from the bees to human cancer and then latches on to it as though it were the real target all along.

If nothing else, piss poor writing skills. But, I suspect that the shift in focus highlights the motives of the writer.

And Billy is right about how bees navigate.

Also, it's ridiculous that: "The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives." Why would the hives be avoided? Are the abandoned hives directly under cell phone towers? Is there a preponderance of cell phone radiation near the hive? If so, then this should be easy enough to determine, but none of the 'studies' mention this in the least.

However, CCD is a huge problem. And it is real. It needs to be solved and fast.

I wonder if they aren't being rustled...? But, if the queen remains with the hive, I don't suppose that's a real option as workers don't breed well (but they do breed, contrary to popular belief. And their eggs are systematically destroyed by other workers.)

Haven´t seen the evidence yet , so I will see it as a theory only ........
Still CCD could spell major trouble for all of us .......

Oh, I saw this on the news tonight. And just remember, the "radiation" isn't JUST cellphones, but all types of radiation. That can include radiation from high-power electric lines, radio, television, airport radars, microwave ovens, ...., and any number of devices that "radiate" energy through the atmosphere.

Baron Max

IF THE BEES DIE OFF.... so will mankind.

its very important....

we should change the freuqencies used in our phones... PERIOD.


-mt

Oh, I saw this on the news tonight. And just remember, the "radiation" isn't JUST cellphones, but all types of radiation. That can include radiation from high-power electric lines, radio, television, airport radars, microwave ovens, ...., and any number of devices that "radiate" energy through the atmosphere.

Baron Max

Some of the bee people think it might be pesticides or Gmo organisms because predators and parasites avoid the dead hives. They won't even eat the honey unless the hives are aired out. I can't see how airing out the hives would help with cellphone generated problems unless the radiation makes the bees produce (shit) something toxic. So the whole thing is still up in the air, but the odds are good that they are dying because of somethign we have done and probably somethign we are rather attached to.

While I have an open mind on he posibility that cell phone radiation may be slightly harmfull to the user, I strongly doubt it is causing bees to lose their way. Bees basically use the fact that scattered sun light (including the blue sky) is polarized to guide them to and from the current better nector sources.
.

One of the experiments they did was to place active cellphones near hives and this did in fact discourage returns. And clearly.

I am not convinced it is cellphones or cellphones alone, but I just wanted to make clear that however this may not seem to fit current understandings, the scientists who are warning about the cellphone connection are not simply guessing.

humans are affected too...so what talk of the bees?

If you mean by 'what talk'
'why talk' about it,
the reason is the bees are dying in the billions. Large %s of the bees populations are dying in many countries in a pattern that is a menace to our food supply.

...I just wanted to make clear that however this may not seem to fit current understandings, the scientists who are warning about the cellphone connection are not simply guessing.I think they have evidence that placing a cell phone near the entrance to the hive will make the bees have difficulty in returning, but think that true even if the batteries were dead. Bees are very confused by even slight visual changes in the last foot or so of their "landing approach."

One winter I put a brick on the lip of a hive to reduce the entrance slot. (It is about 1/4 th inch tall and 15 inches wide.) I knew they eat honey to stay warm and make it thru the winter. - I thought this would reduce the cold air entering, but that hive almost did not make it thru the winter. The bees do go out even in winter to "go to the bath room" and quickly return. The brick on the entrance lip must have changed the local visual impression so that it did not conform to their memorized pattern and many could not find their way back into the hive before the heat lost to the cold air made them flightless.

While the angle to the sun is their many reference for most of their flight, the final approach is by vision, but their vision is very differ from creatures with image forming lenses. - Basically it measures the light intensity coming from different directions without any image.

If you move the hive only two feet sideways in summer, when many bees are out, you will soon have a swarm of confused, nectar-laden, returning bees in front of the old location! - They can not see the hive only a foot away and nothing matches the memorized pattern of light intensity vs angles. Most wander arround confused and by chance get in front of the hive and close enough to it for it to dominate the solid angle "forward" visual pattern and then they fly straight in, no longer confused.

I have not read the report of the experiment, but if they did not compare the cell phone with no battery case to the cell phone with battery case (and I doubt they did) then their results may be nonsense - due to little understanding of how bees find the hive entrance.

I would be interested to know if they did the experiment correctly (had the no-battery cell phone case) It is not unusual for some disease to spread. Bees will try to steal honey from other hives and those that do get past the guard bees carry the infection into the other hive. I bet this is the reason many hives are dying.

BTW - I am strongly of the opinion that it is the hive that lives (or dies). I.e. that bees are just individual specialized "cells" in this hive organism, just as your liver cells are specialized parts of you, the living organism.

Individual bees have specialized jobs (but a set of different ones as they get older.) I put some flour on a few of the bees doing "ventilation duty" (wings furiously beating and feet griping the landing lip) one warm summer day when going into the woods to cut some fire wood. - They were still on duty a couple of hours later when I returned to look. I think that these "cells" of the "living hive body" are specialized into at least two dozen different tasks, like you have liver, teeth, retina, etc. specialized cells.

I again recomend you keep a hive of bees if you can. Very interesting and rewarding project if you read, study and experiment with them. As told in prior post, I started keeping bees for tax reasons, just as about two years ago I started to teach myself some thing about detailed biochemical mechanism of human cells for investment reasons. In both cases, the side effect of learning are more rewarding than the financial gains I acheived. (I am vey frugal, not interested in owning things etc. so making money is just a game and benefit to my grandchildren - might not do it if it were not excuse for learning.) - I am building a house by myself near a lake. (Why I am not active here on Mondays and Tuesday if there is no rain forcasted for the lake area.) As I work slowly (and completely stop to watch birds, sail boats, wild animals, even ants! etc.) it will be at least five times more costly that if I hired someone to do it, but it gets me out of the pollution of Sao Paulo and makes me do hard manual labor, which I would not otherwise do, and few my age can do. Also it has many strange features, which would be difficult to tell (in portuguese) to a hired laborer, I have been at it for 5 years now, and it will take another 10 before all the roof is on, still no windows or wiring etc. - I doubt if I can live long enough to finish it all - would be at least 120 before final coat of paint etc.

My philosophy in life is that the destination (the grave) is not important, or even desirable, but the journey is the important thing.

So the whole thing is still up in the air, but the odds are good that they are dying because of somethign we have done and probably somethign we are rather attached to.

Why does this have to be the case? What evidence do you have to make such claims?

And where's the comparrison to Asia, where as cell phone use is as widespread as in the west? DO they not have bees in Asia?

Should not we be talking about why and how many bees are dying off...and see if this is happening only near cell phone towers?

A lot of things kill honeybees. They are a domestic animal, like a chicken, and tend to get stressed and sick, etc, in commercial operations.

Some of the colonies that have collapsed in this new way are more than ten miles from cell phone towers.

If you look at map, this new thing seems to be hitting hardest in the more southern and western areas of both North America and Europe.

Should not we be talking about why and how many bees are dying off...and see if this is happening only near cell phone towers?

Dude the bees are affected near cell phone towers and cell phones .

Dude, that does not answer the "why" and "how many" part....:D

Dude, that does not answer the "why" and "how many" part....:D

Well the Microwaves signal that both the Cell phone and towers give off affects the Bee's navigation sensors ( or some shit like that!)

If the bees are expose to this long enough , they will just die.:m:

Bees do not emit microwave nor have microwave sensors. Organic creatures can emit ultrasonics and have rosolving capacities. Even the ultrasonic harmonics are way to low from microwave or cell phone frequencies (800 to 900 MHz)

Bees do not emit microwave nor have microwave sensors. Organic creatures can emit ultrasonics and have rosolving capacities. Even the ultrasonic harmonics are way to low from microwave or cell phone frequencies (800 to 900 MHz)

Well I'm beat, some smart guy on yahoo answer told me that was the really reason why this happend

Just goes to show that some people are full of shit, eh?
Anyone with a ready answer to this problem is basically talking out of his ass.
It's an unknown at the moment.
However, what is known is that bees navigate by visual processes, not electromagnetic.

So how bout what we do is not to make a whole crapload of accusations and claims before we have more substantial evidence! :D

Just goes to show that some people are full of shit, eh?
Anyone with a ready answer to this problem is basically talking out of his ass.
It's an unknown at the moment.
However, what is known is that bees navigate by visual processes, not electromagnetic.

Bees hate the advertisement billboards that are so predominant in modern society. fact.

they have not confirmed that any bees have died.......

only that they have choosen to leave the man-made homes....

or have gotten lost...

supposively they just dont know.

-MT

But humans and birds are affected by electromagnetic radiation. Bird migration patterns too, no? We need more information on this. Does anyone have access to that German report?

Well, the press release is in fact more about if radiation affects the brains of bees.
http://www.idw-online.de/pages/de/news119580

Does cell phone radiation make you dumb? Well, just look at who is using cell phones and you can't deny that report!

Well the Microwaves signal that both the Cell phone and towers give off affects the Bee's navigation sensors ( or some shit like that!) If the bees are expose to this long enough , they will just die.:m:Only part correct is the recognition that this is "some shit."

There is much too much ignorance on display in this thread now. Here are some earlier posted facts again.

From post 3:

“When one bee finds a new good source, it returns to the hive and does a vigorous "dance." The length of the line dance between the turning points tells how far away the source is. The angle of the dance line wrt gravity vertical (in the dark hive) tells the angle to fly wrt to the sun. On a fully cloudy day, when no sun can be seen, that is no problem for the bee. - Light coming only from the sun thru the clouds directly to the bee without scattering is the only light with zero polarization, so the bee knows where the sun is, despite the clouds.”

From post 11:

“While the angle to the sun is their many reference for most of their flight, the final approach {to hive entrance} is by vision, but their vision is very differ from creatures with image forming lenses. …If you move the hive only two feet sideways in summer, when many bees are out, you will soon have a swarm of confused, nectar-laden, returning bees in front of the old location! - They can not see the hive only a foot away and nothing matches the memorized pattern of light intensity vs angles. Most wander around confused and by chance get in front of the hive and close enough to it for it to dominate the solid angle "forward" visual pattern and then they fly straight in, no longer confused.

…If they {the researchers} did not compare the cell phone with NO battery case to the cell phone with battery case (and I doubt they did) then their results may be nonsense- due to little understanding of how bees find the hive entrance.*

Bees will try to steal honey from other hives and those that do get past the guard bees carry the infection into the other hive. I bet this is the reason many hives are dying {in some local areas, not everywhere cell phones are in use.}.
------------------------------
*Even changing the visual field by only adding a brick at still open entrance, nearly killed one of my hives - more details in post 11.

IF THE BEES DIE OFF.... so will mankind.

its very important....

This is very true. It has long been a saying here in the UK that without the bee there is no man. Many hive owners here, this spring, opened up empty hives.

we, the race may not die off.... but food will get alot more expensive..

and many will die.

-MT

Can we do genetically modified bees that have sonar capabilities? just a wild thought....get to work Frank....:D

an update
this is a N ew York Times article on the subject

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/24bees.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"The number of bee colonies has been declining since the 1940s, even as the crops that rely on them, such as California almonds, have grown."

Huh!...so we are sleeping at the wheel?

"The number of bee colonies has been declining since the 1940s, even as the crops that rely on them, such as California almonds, have grown."

Huh!...so we are sleeping at the wheel?

Well, more or less. The thing is it takes a fairly unique kind of person to be a beekeeper and not just anyone can/will do it. Think of ALL the people you know - chances are there's someone in that crowd that's involved in almost any business you can name. But how many of them are beekeepers? ;)

If you're doing it commercially, there's actually quite a bit of work involved. Some of it's pretty heavy and it can get really hot in bee suit in the summer. But the biggest factor of all that it requires someone with a tremendous amount of patience - something you don't find in very many people today.

And here I thought, western civilization with high standards of education, business management and organization would be monitoring the Bee health like they do Cow health, Bird Flu etc. It looks like serious enough that the whole process should be elevated to the United Nations ...because our very survival depends on it....

Either the situation is not serious, or there are no leaders in the Bee industry and people do not understand the complexities/ecosystems...

I would like to see someone ask the presidential candidates how they are going to save us and talk about this in every blogs, newspapers etc.

Either it is serious matter like stolen nuclear bombs or NOT. We should find out one way or the other....soon and not wait for another 60 years!

And here I thought, western civilization with high standards of education, business management and organization would be monitoring the Bee health like they do Cow health, Bird Flu etc. It looks like serious enough that the whole process should be elevated to the United Nations ...because our very survival depends on it....

Either the situation is not serious, or there are no leaders in the Bee industry and people do not understand the complexities/ecosystems...

I would like to see someone ask the presidential candidates how they are going to save us and talk about this in every blogs, newspapers etc.

Either it is serious matter like stolen nuclear bombs or NOT. We should find out one way or the other....soon and not wait for another 60 years!

I agree completely! But the trouble is that for most people, it's not really a problem. Just look back over this thread and the other one - what do you see? Several saying that it doesn't matter because there are plenty of natural pollinators (yeah, right!) and that it's "part of evolution" (yeah, right again!).

Basically, it's largely a situation of ignorance and apathy. Those of us who were in the business back then have been trying to get attention all along - but no one was listening. But perhaps that might change when tomatoes are selling for $20 a pound and there's NO fruit to be found on the market.

Not that I want that to happen - heaven forbid! But it may take something like that to overcome the ignorance and apathy. It seems that the majority of the people are too far removed to even be bothered. After all, food just comes from the store, right?

I agree completely! But the trouble is that for most people, it's not really a problem. Just look back over this thread and the other one - what do you see? Several saying that it doesn't matter because there are plenty of natural pollinators (yeah, right!) and that it's "part of evolution" (yeah, right again!). I think you mistake a different take on the problem for a belief that there is none.

Most plants have pollinators other than honeybees. The kind of dependence on domesticated honeybees that has created our current vulnerability is not necessary. Agriculture with such a vulnerability is vulnerable. Agriculture should not be so vulnerable.

And honeybees, as feral and alien animals, do harm as well as good, in their supplanting of native (and occasionally superior) pollinators.

What we face is a reminder of the necessity of making significant changes in our systems of growing food. If the pollinators of a landscape have been so reduced, in number and kind, that a single plague aflicting one variety of honeybee can knock out a quarter of the fruits and veggies in the supermarket, that's a problem whether the plague comes or not.

The bee is the most prolific pollenator on the planet, thats a fact. Nature will not reproduce if there is a key element missing.

I think you mistake a different take on the problem for a belief that there is none.

Most plants have pollinators other than honeybees. The kind of dependence on domesticated honeybees that has created our current vulnerability is not necessary. Agriculture with such a vulnerability is vulnerable. Agriculture should not be so vulnerable.

And honeybees, as feral and alien animals, do harm as well as good, in their supplanting of native (and occasionally superior) pollinators.

What we face is a reminder of the necessity of making significant changes in our systems of growing food. If the pollinators of a landscape have been so reduced, in number and kind, that a single plague aflicting one variety of honeybee can knock out a quarter of the fruits and veggies in the supermarket, that's a problem whether the plague comes or not.

No, I'm not making a mistake, you are.

Let me make this as plain as possible: your error is that you are relying ONLY upon your own personal opinion while totally and completely ignoring the real facts.

You still do not understand that there NEVER has been, nor would there EVER have been enough native pollinators to support modern agriculture!! As they
say in legal circles, you are assuming facts not in evidence and that is the fatal flaw in your lack of understanding the real problem.

Once agriculture passed the point of a man with a mule and hoe, the die was cast and there was no turning back. Your vastly overestimated numbers of natural pollinators could not possibly handle 500 acres of (each) cucumbers, tomatoes, squash, eggplant, peaches, apples, pears, etc. And to assume so is rather foolish. You do not seem to realize that the honeybee was introduced not for the production of honey but for the production of FOOD.

What I've just presented you with are facts. What you keep submitting is nothing more than uninformed opinion.

You still do not understand that there NEVER has been, nor would there EVER have been enough native pollinators to support modern agriculture!! And you insist on ignoring the obvious falsity of that statement. The world, including the North American continent, was covered with flowering plants fully as productive of plant stuff as any apple orchard or cucumber field, for a million years before the domestication of honeybees.

Before there were 500 acres of cucumbers, there were 500 acres of flowering plants all successfully pollinated without a single honeybee around.

The Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Mississippi Valley city dwellers, etc, had the most sophisticated plant agriculture in the world, supported large cities on plant agriculture without a single large domesticated meat animal, lived in cities and built huge buildings and fielded armies off their wide variety of fruits and beans and nuts and grains and vegetables, without a single honeybee on the continent.

The current shortage of pollinators is a consequence of modern agriculture, not a prior difficulty that can only be overcome by hauling in truckloads of specialty bees.

The problem of industrial dependence on one key factor, such as setting things up so your crops fail and your whole system falls apart if this one particular kind of imported specialty domesticated bee gets sick, is indeed characteristic of "modern agriculture", but there's no sense in pretending it's necessary. Modern agriculture needs to change a bit, is all.

And you insist on ignoring the obvious falsity of that statement. The world, including the North American continent, was covered with flowering plants fully as productive of plant stuff as any apple orchard or cucumber field, for a million years before the domestication of honeybees.

Before there were 500 acres of cucumbers, there were 500 acres of flowering plants all successfully pollinated without a single honeybee around.

The Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Mississippi Valley city dwellers, etc, had the most sophisticated plant agriculture in the world, supported large cities on plant agriculture without a single large domesticated meat animal, lived in cities and built huge buildings and fielded armies off their wide variety of fruits and beans and nuts and grains and vegetables, without a single honeybee on the continent.

The current shortage of pollinators is a consequence of modern agriculture, not a prior difficulty that can only be overcome by hauling in truckloads of specialty bees.

The problem of industrial dependence on one key factor, such as setting things up so your crops fail and your whole system falls apart if this one particular kind of imported specialty domesticated bee gets sick, is indeed characteristic of "modern agriculture", but there's no sense in pretending it's necessary. Modern agriculture needs to change a bit, is all.

No, once again it's you who is not facing facts.

To begin with, the ancient peoples in Central and South America were very much dependent upon corn (maize) as their primary source of food. ( And it's self (wind) pollinated.) Wild game was the second. And those vast fields of flowering plants you mentioned existed only in your imagination.

As to your likes or dislikes of modern agriculture, that's totally beside the point - it exists. And "changing it a bit" is a sensless statement as far as I can tell. What "bit" of change would you propose?

One last question: have you ever been involved, even remotely, in ANY phase of agriculture? The reason I ask is because you seem to know so little about it.

To begin with, the ancient peoples in Central and South America were very much dependent upon corn (maize) as their primary source of food. ( And it's self (wind) pollinated.) Wild game was the second. Wild game was not even tenth, in the great cities of Meso-America. You can't feed a large city on wild game.

The basic diet in many areas was corn, beans, and squash. Don't forget the beans and squash - grown over large acreages, intensively managed for yield, etc. Other places we find potatoes, bananas, etc.

They were arguably less dependent, over all, on maize than we are, economically at any rate.

A very wide, complex, sophisticated plant agriclture - with evidence of deliberate breeding institutions, etc. These people farmed, and raised armies and cities and large scale public works, and supported quite high population denisties, without honeybees.
And those vast fields of flowering plants you mentioned existed only in your imagination. And in the accounts of the pioneers on the prairie, the view out my car window at times, the descriptions of flora and fauna of the North American continent we can find in many places, etc.
As to your likes or dislikes of modern agriculture, that's totally beside the point - it exists. And "changing it a bit" is a sensless statement as far as I can tell. My likes or dislikes do not affect the pertinent fact: a system so dependent on one vulnerable factor is vulnerable. As the Irish found out in the early 1800s, and we may be finding out now in milder form, such vulnerabilities are mistakes.

Wild game was not even tenth, in the great cities of Meso-America. You can't feed a large city on wild game.

The basic diet in many areas was corn, beans, and squash. Don't forget the beans and squash - grown over large acreages, intensively managed for yield, etc. Other places we find potatoes, bananas, etc.

They were arguably less dependent, over all, on maize than we are, economically at any rate.

A very wide, complex, sophisticated plant agriclture - with evidence of deliberate breeding institutions, etc. These people farmed, and raised armies and cities and large scale public works, and supported quite high population denisties, without honeybees.
And in the accounts of the pioneers on the prairie, the view out my car window at times, the descriptions of flora and fauna of the North American continent we can find in many places, etc.
My likes or dislikes do not affect the pertinent fact: a system so dependent on one vulnerable factor is vulnerable. As the Irish found out in the early 1800s, and we may be finding out now in milder form, such vulnerabilities are mistakes.

I clearly note that you chose NOT to respond to my questions about your experience in agriculture OR my request for what "bit" of agriculture you would propose to change.

Very well. As I have stated elsewhere, while there is a very large number here who enjoy engaging in endless debates, I am not one of them.

So let's get right to it, shall we?? Instead of presenting your own, less than informed opinions, give us some links to SOLID information that natural (we'll define that as other than honeybees) pollinators have ever been sufficient to meet the needs of modern agriculture. I can provide you with hundreds, if not thousands that state otherwise.

So - can you provide independent evidence of YOUR claims?????

Instead of presenting your own, less than informed opinions, give us some links to SOLID information that natural (we'll define that as other than honeybees) pollinators have ever been sufficient to meet the needs of modern agriculture. That is not what I am arguing. Modern agrculture, which is less than a hundred years old, has eliminated natural pollinators from much of their range and has always depended heavily on the European imported domesticated honeybee for essentially all non-wind pollination (with exceptions, such as seed alfalfa - the large modern acreages of seed alfalfa are pollinated by "natural" pollinators, despite the impossibility of that, according to some)

That is an error, as we are discovering. An unforced one. And that is my contention.
I clearly note that you chose NOT to respond to my questions about your experience in agriculture OR my request for what "bit" of agriculture you would propose to change. And you will note that I did not go out of my way to make slurs about your apparent ignorance of non-agrcultural pollination, and did in fact specify the one aspect of modern agriculture relevant here: we are too dependent on honeybees, and alternative possibilities exist to be investigated.

And whatever changes need to be made concomitantly, should be made.

I don't know what the big deal is about that fairly obvious and innocuous observation, or where the anger and personal crap is coming from. I grew up in a small rural town, my maternal grandfather was a dairy farmer, and farmhand (live in and otherwise) was my common job for all the summers of my youth. I also worked with a girlfriend's small honeybee operation a few times, pulling frames and moving hives and running the separator, had a very good 4H insect collection, helped out on a couple of scientific studies of various insects, have an educated interest in mathematical ecology, usually put in a large garden, and so forth, and so what? None of that has anything to do with the issues here.

That is not what I am arguing. Modern agrculture, which is less than a hundred years old, has eliminated natural pollinators from much of their range and has always depended heavily on the European imported domesticated honeybee for essentially all non-wind pollination (with exceptions, such as seed alfalfa - the large modern acreages of seed alfalfa are pollinated by "natural" pollinators, despite the impossibility of that, according to some)

Yet another partial inaccuracy. Alfalfa requires a pollinator that will "trip" the blossom, preventing anything else from entering in order to begin the seed setting process. Yes, honeybees aren't strong enough do that, though they sometimes manage to steal some nectar at tiny slits near the base of the flower. The primary pollinator of alfalfa is carpenter bees - very similar to bumblebees except they are smaller and have a hard, hairless shell that can make them appear to shine. They are solitary bees and do not build a hive. But again, their numbers are limited. Large growers of alfalfa started long ago "domesticating" them (in one sense) by erecting wooden structures for them to nest in. And not just one but multiple structures on large farms.

And you will note that I did not go out of my way to make slurs about your apparent ignorance of non-agrcultural pollination, and did in fact specify the one aspect of modern agriculture relevant here: we are too dependent on honeybees, and alternative possibilities exist to be investigated.

And I've not gone out of my way to make slurs about your obvious lack of understanding - I've done nothing more than state facts about that and present other supporting facts as well. And I'd sure like to see just what "alternative possibilities" you think exist? Please list them.

I don't know what the big deal is about that fairly obvious and innocuous observation, or where the anger and personal crap is coming from. I grew up in a small rural town, my maternal grandfather was a dairy farmer, and farmhand (live in and otherwise) was my common job for all the summers of my youth. I also worked with a girlfriend's small honeybee operation a few times, pulling frames and moving hives and running the separator, had a very good 4H insect collection, helped out on a couple of scientific studies of various insects, have an educated interest in mathematical ecology, usually put in a large garden, and so forth, and so what? None of that has anything to do with the issues here.

There's absolutely no personal crap nor anger coming from my side of this. I deal only in facts - not in emotions or simple opinions, either.

And yes, your background has a great deal to to with the issues here as you will clearly see in just one moment.

The experience you've had was good - congratulations. :) But it in no way prepared you to understand nor appreciate what's involved in the commercial production of fruit, nuts and vegetables - and THAT'S what this is really all about. Please forgive the analogy I'm about to use, it's not at all meant to be a personal insult but merely descriptive. Your limited experience places you in the same position as a high school student who spends the summer helping feed the animals and clean cages at the zoo - and then comes away thinking they've learned all there is to know about animals. In both cases, the zoo helper and yours, there's a tremendous amount that hasn't been seen, explained nor understood.

And I'd sure like to see just what "alternative possibilities" you think exist? Gee, let me look real hard - - - - found one! The primary pollinator of alfalfa is carpenter bees - very similar to bumblebees except they are smaller and have a hard, hairless shell that can make them appear to shine. They are solitary bees and do not build a hive. But again, their numbers are limited. Large growers of alfalfa started long ago "domesticating" them (in one sense) by erecting wooden structures for them to nest in. And not just one but multiple structures on large farms.
I've done nothing more than state facts about that and present other supporting facts as well. Youve done nothing more than assert a lack of alternative pollinators, and call me ignorant for pointing out the impossibility of that state of affairs on a continent covered in flowering plants of all kinds and completely lacking in honeybees.

I have no idea even why you would make such an assertion, or attack me for pointing out it is silly, but you persist.

When you get around to presenting facts relevant to anything I've posted, they will have something to do with this, my assertion: Our agricultural systems are too reliant on one particular pollinator, and are thus vulnerable. This is an archetypical error, as we are being forcibly reminded, and we should incorporate other pollinators - probably chosen from among the many candidates proven effective in the natural world - in our agricultural systems. This may involve subsidiary changes in the industrial agricultural practice we know - so be it.

Just so you know, bees are only responsible for pollinating about 30 percent of human plant foods in the United States.

Edit: Honeybees, that is.

Gee, let me look real hard - - - - found one!
Youve done nothing more than assert a lack of alternative pollinators, and call me ignorant for pointing out the impossibility of that state of affairs on a continent covered in flowering plants of all kinds and completely lacking in honeybees.

I have no idea even why you would make such an assertion, or attack me for pointing out it is silly, but you persist.

When you get around to presenting facts relevant to anything I've posted, they will have something to do with this, my assertion: Our agricultural systems are too reliant on one particular pollinator, and are thus vulnerable. This is an archetypical error, as we are being forcibly reminded, and we should incorporate other pollinators - probably chosen from among the many candidates proven effective in the natural world - in our agricultural systems. This may involve subsidiary changes in the industrial agricultural practice we know - so be it.

Look - if nothing else, let's get ONE thing straight, OK? I have absolutely no interest in attacking you. I could not care less if you are black, white, green, yellow, male, female or anything else. What I AM attacking is the misinformation you are presenting here - nothing more. I hate misinformation and will readily attack it anywhere I find it.

Now, are we clear on that???????

Carpenter bees are hardly the answer. They are too few in number, difficult to increase in numbers and are too selective in the plants that they will visit. They aren't readily adaptable to being transported and, like any other insect, will die off if when the local local food supply is depleted - and that's a COMMON occurrence with fruit, nuts and vegetables since most of them have only a VERY short blooming season. Honeybees, on the other hand, are fairly easy to transport as the growing season naturally progresses and moves Northward. So they do not suffer from loss of food since they can be taken to where more is available.

So far, about the only correct thing you've said is that we seem to to be too dependent on honeybees for pollination. And I agree with that. But to try to "move" to your more "natural pollinators" is pure foolishness! The obvious answer, though you choose to ignore it, is to find and correct whatever is killing the bees. Apparently, it's not going to be easy but remember this - the problem has just NOW been discovered! It's New! And there hasn't yet been sufficient time to study and correct it. In the long run, that will prove to be the only solution worth working on and it WILL succeed despite what you seem to think.

What I AM attacking is the misinformation you are presenting here - nothing more. I hate misinformation and will readily attack it anywhere I find it.

Now, are we clear on that??????? No, we're not. As far as I can tell, you are as wrong about whatever "misinformation" I am presenting here as you are about my personal background and the argument I am presenting.
So far, about the only correct thing you've said is that we seem to to be too dependent on honeybees for pollination. And I agree with that. But to try to "move" to your more "natural pollinators" is pure foolishness! The obvious answer, though you choose to ignore it, is to find and correct whatever is killing the bees. To move from "too dependent on bees" to "the only answer is to restore the bees" is strange, no?

There are other possibilities, besides the basic, traditional one of learning how to handle a few different pollinators for various situations. One might be to establish some kind of repository of genetic variabillity (including wild stock and related species) in honeybees, as is done with corn (after the early 70s near-disasters showed the necessity). Barring serious advances in genetic manipulation, there are some obvious practical difficulties with that.

I have nothing against finding and fixing whatever happened to the bees this time. I like honey, honeybees are very conveniently domesticated,and this is an emergency. But that doesn't solve the problem we've suddenly noticed, does it.
Just so you know, bees are only responsible for pollinating about 30 percent of human plant foods in the United States. It's kind of an important 30%, though. It's the non-grass stuff.

No, we're not. As far as I can tell, you are as wrong about whatever "misinformation" I am presenting here as you are about my personal background and the argument I am presenting.

Key words there are "as far as I [you] can tell." What I haven't revealed until now is that I've spent many decades being involved in several different phases of agriculture, including, of course, pollination issues.

To move from "too dependent on bees" to "the only answer is to restore the bees" is strange, no?

Not in the least. I'm coming from the standpoint that until now we've really done very little to protect the vital honeybees against dangers.

There are other possibilities, besides the basic, traditional one of learning how to handle a few different pollinators for various situations. One might be to establish some kind of repository of genetic variabillity (including wild stock and related species) in honeybees, as is done with corn (after the early 70s near-disasters showed the necessity). Barring serious advances in genetic manipulation, there are some obvious practical difficulties with that.

Indeed, there is truth in that - I readily agree. But that will be a LONG time (years) in coming. Meanwhile, it's certainly worth working on.

I have nothing against finding and fixing whatever happened to the bees this time. I like honey, honeybees are very conveniently domesticated,and this is an emergency. But that doesn't solve the problem we've suddenly noticed, does it.

I take it that last statement was actually supposed to be a question. But again "suddenly noticed" is what's important there. Surely, you didn't expect a instant solution????? Give them a few months to research and THEN complain if there's no progress.

Not in the least. I'm coming from the standpoint that until now we've really done very little to protect the vital honeybees against dangers. And I'm coming from the standpoint that agricultural systems with all their eggs in that kind of a basket are disasters waiting to happen.
But again "suddenly noticed" is what's important there. Surely, you didn't expect a instant solution????? Give them a few months to research and THEN complain if there's no progress. But if they are dominated by your kind of thinking, they aren't going to do any research that will bear on the main problem here. AFAIK nobody, for example, is trying to learn how to manage bumblebees in an agricultural setting - or learning how to manage agriculture in a bumblebee setting, either.
Key words there are "as far as I [you] can tell." What I haven't revealed until now is that I've spent many decades being involved in several different phases of agriculture, including, of course, pollination issues. So you were just pulling my leg with that "no natural/alternative pollinators" crapola ? Fooled me.

And I'm coming from the standpoint that agricultural systems with all their eggs in that kind of a basket are disasters waiting to happen.
But if they are dominated by your kind of thinking, they aren't going to do any research that will bear on the main problem here. AFAIK nobody, for example, is trying to learn how to manage bumblebees in an agricultural setting - or learning how to manage agriculture in a bumblebee setting, either.
So you were just pulling my leg with that "no natural/alternative pollinators" crapola ? Fooled me.

I will say just a few things here and then I'm through with this endless back-and-forth business.

Many of us tried to sound the alarm about the dangers to bees as far back as the 1960s. We WERE lucky enough to get some attention about pesticides and progress was made. But as to the rest, we couldn't get through to the people who controlled the REAL money - the government in general and the Dept. of Ag in particular.

Honeybees are just as important to many food crops as water and sunshine - and there's no substitutes for those, either!

And while you don't seem to realize it - perhaps someday you will - what you're actually advocating is un-natural pollinators. I've tried very patiently to explain to you that there simply aren't and never have been enough natural pollinators to support modern agriculture. If you can somehow ever come to grips with that one fact you will have made some real progress. Meanwhile, the world you keep trying to describe just doesn't exist.

Best of luck to you in your journey to learning.

I've tried very patiently to explain to you that there simply aren't and never have been enough natural pollinators to support modern agriculture Except thousands of acres of seed alfalfa, of course.

Your "explanation" has so far consisted of repeated assertion only, of a claim that beggars belief.

None of the dozens of species of bumblebees can possibly be adapted to agriculture. None of the dozens of species of solitary bees -except the one we were forced to find, when the honeybee proved completely worthless instead of merely awkward. None of the hundreds of species of pollinating moths - some numerous enough to lay waste to square miles of woodland leaves, numerous enough to destroy hundreds of acres of crops, cycles timed to match inflorescence and serve as critical pollinators even - none of them can possibly be of the slightest use in agricultural pollination. None of the hundreds of flies, wasps, - - -


the fields of silphium on the great plains can be bumblebee pollinated, but not a few hundred acres of cucumbers, the great forests with their groves of fruit and nut trees that covered the eastern half of the continent, the thickets of plums and chokecherries covering acres on the prairie, the fields of goldenrod and daisy and clover and thistle, the hillsides of blueberries and fireweed that come in after fire in the northern woods, the - but wait, all these are products of my imagination.

So you "patiently explain" .

I wish you luck with the bees. If they do recover this time, I wish you luck next time as well, and the time after. Because we will certainly need it. This situation will not go away by itself, and no one is dealing with it, apparently.

The independent is an interesting paper, but they do get some whack jobs occasionally. They've been trying to prove that cell phones are part of the leftpocalypse for a couple of years now.

What I think is the most interesting part of all this is Charles C. Mann also put out an article this month on Jamestown in National Geographic. In the article he tells about how the English colonists introduced bees to America and how feral bees changed the American Landscape. The bees that are disappearing are just the corporate shill bees, the bees in the grey flannel suit, if you will

I noticed the earlier debate about mesoamerican foods - they used a system called the milpa, which is basically an awesome form of permaculture and complementary plantings.

ok , now to work

Just so you know, bees are only responsible for pollinating about 30 percent of human plant foods in the United States.
Edit: Honeybees, that is. Do you have a reference? I recall reading that the renting of honey bee hives at correct time can INCREASE certain crop yield by 30% - could this be confusing you?

I think that much higher % of all comercially important pollination is by honey bees, but this is just my current impression / memory from what I read many years ago when I was very interested in honey bees.

I originally heard the number on NPR from Doctor May Berenbaum who studies CCD at the University of Illinois. After this, I did a bit of web research and found numerous references to the 30 percent (about a third).

One source states that about a third of human food is insect pollinated, 80 percent of which is pollinated by honey bees.

Dr. Berenbaum also states that about 90 crops are pollinated by honey bees although she doesn't list them (of course.)

If you wish to hear the interview, it can be found here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9972616

...One source states that about a third of human food is insect pollinated, 80 percent of which is pollinated by honey bees....I suspect that is about correct. The wind does a lot of pollination, I think, perhaps as about same % as bees do. But until some one gives reputable reference to major importance for many crops (not just a spealized few) I think honey bees are by far the the most important insect pollinator and if all were to be killed by CCD, it would be a human economic disaster, larger than the depression of 1929.

Here is an interesting article about disappearing bees. (http://viewzone.com/lostbees.html)

http://viewzone.com/lostbees.pollen.jpg

This whole subject requires a great deal more reading on my part, but I just wanted to stick in one broader question of advocacy:

- The bees, the frogs, and the fish in the Great Lakes ... really, what does anyone think is going on?

Yes, it's a political question.

Interestingly, though, all of these news stories coming to light aren't exactly news to me. I hear of them via NPR and PRI, usually a couple weeks before they hit the commercial press.

So right now we've got a fungus attacking amphibians to such a degree that one biologist (or zoologist, can't remember) has gone so far as to say that humanity has never witnessed an extinction like the one threatening the frogs.

Whether or not we are the official "cause" of the frogs' plight, or of the bleeding viral infection taking it to the fish in the Great Lakes, we are, indeed, contributing to that cause.

Throw that in with the potential of human-caused increases in the natural warming of the globe, and at some point we must realize: Our species is officially on notice. We are officially under threat.

And this is what makes the environmentalists gnash and wail: if we divide it up into many small, unrelated problems, we're never going to clue in. What is the cumulative effect? What story does it tell?

It would be exceptionally thick on our part to discount the human factor in the current bee crisis.

(A note for Hermes3x: That was a great article in the NG. Thanks for reminding us of it.)

Here is an interesting article about disappearing bees. (http://viewzone.com/lostbees.html)
http://viewzone.com/lostbees.pollen.jpgYes quite interesting and some what scary. I had been assuming that CCD was caused by some virus or bacteria and that if worst came to worst, some hive or hives would be naturally resistant. I knew that some bee keepers specialize in selling bees (a queen and a pound or so of workers) and that they know how to cause many queens to be produced in each hive, so I thought the population of resistant bees could be built back up reasonably quickly from resistant colonies. This may still be true, but I am now more worried by the possibility that it is GM plants that are causing CCD. (I have been a supporter of GM plants.)

That bulge you see on bee in the photo's right fore leg is not a tumor - it is his "pollen sack" very full of pollen. Pollen is essential the hive. It is the only source of the protein needed to make new bees. During the peak of the summer, bees live only a few weeks. They literally work them selves to death. In winter, when just trying not to die from the cold, the same bees live all winter long. (Must as there is no pollen to make new bees with.)

If the GM plants are modified to incorporate genetic instruction in every cell's chemical fabrication processes to make within each cell a insecticide harmless to the plant and to man (at least by direct action on man) then the pollen that bee in the photo is bring home probably has potent insecticide in it. In three weeks all the workers will be dead and the new bees that should have replaced them dead also. I.e. the insecticide may be like the thalidomide disaster, not hurt the adult (human or bee) but mess up a critical step in the development of bees. This is easy to test, but an affirmative answer is not in the immediate interest of the companies inserting the insecticide making genes into the plant’s DNA. This is potentially so serious, that governments should not only hope that all the companies that are inserting these genes will act in their own longer term interest, even it hurts the "bottom line" for a few years.

Best way to find out is to somehow catch a few dead bees through a controlled experiment (covering a large area with a net and the bee and GM flower inside) to see if the GM plant designed insecticide is the cause. If it is a broad spectrum pesticide inside due to genetic mutation, then we are all in trouble.

Long ago, I had a nightmare (I posted in the early days of Sciforums) that humans have genetically modified most plants that we use as food source and in a few hundred years, all mutated to create poisons that are lethal to humans. There was no non-GM left to start all over.

I hope that was a nightmare and not unfolding now.

Best way to find out is to somehow catch a few dead bees through a controlled experiment (covering a large area with a net and the bee and GM flower inside) to see if the GM plant designed insecticide is the cause.I think it better to look carefully at the development of new bees with in the hive. Fact that they do not find dead bees in the hive is reasonable good indication that few die there. Normally, in summer the are out working break a wing etc. and die. Unlike many animals, bees can not repair any damage the sustain.

Again this is consistent with my POV that bees are only the cells of the living hive organism. Our cells are dying all the time and like bees, they just get replaced.

I suspect, if GM toxins built into each cell are causing the CCD problem, including the pollen, which is the only protein source for making new bees, then it is like Thalidomide - I.e. causing fatal gestations defects, but harmless to the adult bees.

Reading about, I'm not finding much new. But there is this:

Two federal agencies are testing bee feed to determine if it is tainted with a pet food additive blamed for killing cats and dogs, and whether that could also be responsible for the widespread collapse of honeybee colonies, a newspaper reported.

No bees in 20 test cages have died 10 days into the three-week study, but Jeffrey Pettis, the research leader at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that he wanted to determine if melamine is linked to Colony Collapse Disorder ....

.... "I think it's a great thing that they're looking at it," said Maryann Frazier, a honeybee extension specialist. "I think the key to this is going to be ruling things out." (NEPA News (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18358597&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6))

Part of me, of course, just groans: We're still at the "ruling things out" stage.

And then I cheer up. It's more than we normally do. If this was the 1980s, we'd let the bees die off and then blame the Democrats. So, hey, we're not extinct yet. Everyone cheer up.

My bet appears to be correct. Here is that "bet", but see all of my post 27 for my logic (built on my understanding of how bees find their home and fact dead bees are not found inside the hive.) of why disease, not cell phones, was the problem....Bees will try to steal honey from other hives and those that do get past the guard bees carry the infection into the other hive. I bet this is the reason many hives are dying {in some local areas, not everywhere cell phones are in use.}.
------------------------------
*Even changing the visual field by only adding a brick at still open entrance, nearly killed one of my hives - more details in post 11.See my post at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1534911&postcount=9

for why this is POV is becoming accepted and the fantastic advances in lowering the cost of DNA sequencing and quality imporvements, including now doing things previously impossible by the new "meta.sequencing" approach. (Called the greatest advance since the microscope by the Nat. Accad. of Sciences for understanding germs etc.)

Reading about, I'm not finding much new. But there is this:

Two federal agencies are testing bee feed to determine if it is tainted with a pet food additive blamed for killing cats and dogs, and whether that could also be responsible for the widespread collapse of honeybee colonies, a newspaper reported.

No bees in 20 test cages have died 10 days into the three-week study, but Jeffrey Pettis, the research leader at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bee Research Laboratory, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that he wanted to determine if melamine is linked to Colony Collapse Disorder ....

.... "I think it's a great thing that they're looking at it," said Maryann Frazier, a honeybee extension specialist. "I think the key to this is going to be ruling things out." (NEPA News (http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18358597&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_id=465812&rfi=6))

Part of me, of course, just groans: We're still at the "ruling things out" stage.

And then I cheer up. It's more than we normally do. If this was the 1980s, we'd let the bees die off and then blame the Democrats. So, hey, we're not extinct yet. Everyone cheer up.

Well, HERE'S something new - just a few days old. They may have possibly found link between the die-off and an obscure virus. It's also possible that the virus may be working in conjunction with one or mare problems that have long been identified. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20612274/

Not too far back, I had a continuing running 'shooting match' with a member here who thought the best (or was it maybe the only) way to deal with the problem was to forget honeybees and use other insects for pollinators. My position was give the scientists a little time to work on the problem - at that moment it was still VERY new. And now I'm quite happy to report that my stance was most likely justified. They found a 96.1% correlation which is pretty much a smoking gun in anybody's book!

They aren't finished yet, of course, so let's give them some more time. But once again it proves that it's very foolish to just throw out the baby with the bath water. Just give the people with the knowledge, experience and tools some time to do their job instead of attempting to reinvent a probable faulty wheel. The idea of "other natural pollinators" was absurd from the beginning. Moths, indeed!!:bugeye:

The original paper published online in Science and the accompanying news story (subscription required, unfortunately):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146498
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5843/1304

Well, HERE'S something new - just a few days old. They may have possibly found link between the die-off and an obscure virus. It's also possible that the virus may be working in conjunction with one or mare problems that have long been identified. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20612274/
:

Thanks for keeping the topic in the back of your mind!

I just wanted to add that the virus 'cause' does not rule out other factors:

Experts stressed that parasitic mites, pesticides and poor nutrition all remain in the lineup of suspects, as does the stress of travel. Beekeepers shuffle bees around the nation throughout the year so they can pollinate crops as they come into bloom.

and of course humans playing a marginal to large role in the problem. Organic bee farms are not experiencing problem.

Thanks for keeping the topic in the back of your mind!

You're very welcome. :) I used to be an avid beekeeper and admire the hard-working little critters very much. In addition to that, this is something of great importance to our food supply.

I just wanted to add that the virus 'cause' does not rule out other factors.

Oh, absolutely. And it may be some of those other factors that weakens them and allows the virus to do it's damage. Similar to the deaths you hear about in some people being attributed to pneumonia. Yes, that's what actually killed them in the end but it wouldn't have if they had not been weaked by other problems. Several older famous people have died just like that. The jury is still very much out and there's a lot of work left to be done. But that 96% correlation factor is still VERY impressive!



and of course humans playing a marginal to large role in the problem. Organic bee farms are not experiencing problem.

I haven't notice much as to reports of organic management not having any problems. Do you happen to have a source for something on that?

Interesting.

I am not sure if anyone discussed the die off could also be caused by higher amount of UV-B radiation hitting the bees due to a combination of Ozone depletion and Sun's increase in radiation cycle (Solar storms).

There is an increase in solar radiation (http://solardat.uoregon.edu/download/Papers/DirectNormalTrends.pdf)in Oregon in the last 25 years.

I am not sure if anyone discussed the die off could also be caused by higher amount of UV-B radiation hitting the bees due to a combination of Ozone depletion and Sun's increase in radiation cycle (Solar storms). ...While I doubt that is the casue, it is much more plausible to me than "cell phones." My first guess (from my experiments as bee keeper) was that the bees could not find way back to hive if cell phone* was placed on the "landing lip." I guessed this as one winter I put a brick there to have half close the hive so cold air would not blow in so much and that nearly killed the hive.)

Bee's vision is very different from human image on retina vision - sort of a pattern match process built on the pattern of space from which the light comes. My birck caused a mis match just as they got near the entrance and they aborted the return to hive. - By the time they could find way back in, they could not fly in the below freezing weather. (They only go out very briefly in cold weather to go to the bath room outside of the hive.)

Thus, too much UV into their eyes may may be a problem. Bees see way out into the UV and use the different "UV colors" of all the flowers which appear equally "white" to humans to know which "white flower" is currently with nectar flow. Human vision does not quite span one octave, but the bee's vision spans approximately two! Bees live in a world that is much more full of colors than humans do. Mess with it in the UV could be very serious for them. Perhaps the equivalent of "snow blindness" for a human lost in the artic on a sunny day with no dark sun glasses.
-------------------
*I noted in prior post that if it was a cell phone effect, it would probably be just as strong for cell phone that had no battery.

That is what I was thinking....it takes very small amount of changes in the ecosystem to have a large effect to small creatures. Somewhere I read that abrupt changes in ecosystem even if minor ones (amplitude) cause plauges and other nasty viruses and bacteria population to increase or decrease thus upseting the balance.

While planetary increase in EMF radiation due to human activities can also cause issues, but because the energy level is proportional to the square of the distance, it is more like the solar radiation - high energy UV radiation can even penetrate several feet of water - that could be more of a culprit.

BTW, they were talking about Cell Phone towers rather than Cell Phone itself which is in milliwatt range (digital ones).

...BTW, they were talking about Cell Phone towers rather than Cell Phone itself which is in milliwatt range (digital ones).[/COLOR]Thanks for infro - I never read the original report.

Just give the people with the knowledge, experience and tools some time to do their job instead of attempting to reinvent a probable faulty wheel. The idea of "other natural pollinators" was absurd from the beginning. So if a virus is the central factor, and the virus is handled somehow, you'd be comfortable going back to the revealed complete dependence on the one domesticated bee for pollination of that large a fraction of the human food supply?

People here would be happy to see us go from disaster, revealed vulnerability, to whew, caught it in time - without ever taking steps at reducing the vulnerability? This is the only problem we are ever going to have, with our dependence on a single kind of bee worldwide?

...This is the only problem we are ever going to have, with our dependence on a single kind of bee worldwide?Basically mono-pollinator for many crops (like the trend to mono- crops and within each crop a "most productive strain" is a real concern.)

The solution is to give a government based inducement for some crop diversity to remain, but in the case of bees, I do not know what can be done except to appreciate and protect wild colonies. I.e. big fine for chopping tree of their hive down just to steal some honey etc. Almost all domestic bees are the Italian ones, but in Brazil the African hybrids exist (by accident). The "killer bees" of some fame a decade or so ago. Food could get expensive, but so long as wild bees work for us too, that will not be a disaster.

I am more concerned with special corn being GM developed for the growing alcohol industry.

So if a virus is the central factor, and the virus is handled somehow, you'd be comfortable going back to the revealed complete dependence on the one domesticated bee for pollination of that large a fraction of the human food supply?

People here would be happy to see us go from disaster, revealed vulnerability, to whew, caught it in time - without ever taking steps at reducing the vulnerability? This is the only problem we are ever going to have, with our dependence on a single kind of bee worldwide?

Ah, yes - it was YOU.

After all this time, you still don't fully understand - do you?

After all this time, you still don't fully understand - do you? So do you find the mere possibility of a return to the status quo a satisfactory response, or not?

Back in the 70s, the US planted something like like 2/3 of its corn acreage in one range of corn varieties - and almost lost the whole thing in one year, to a fungus that had adapted well to a strain used in all those hybrids. Emergency responses of various kinds - fungicides, firebreak harvesting, quick identification of the problem, etc - were made, of course, but that was not all. The response was not "hurray, we have identified the problem and know how to fix it". The response was "We are too dependent on this one kind of corn. We need more diversity, or next time we're going to get hammered." The research efforts were boosted immediately, the development well funded, various prophylactic practices and agencies established as a matter of urgency. The necessary diversity was mandated, by law, for the future. That was a wise response.

We don't have enough diversity in our pollinators of food crops. We are too dependent on a narrow range of honeybee varieties. We need more diversity or next time we are going to get hammered. How hard is that to understand?

So do you find the mere possibility of a return to the status quo a satisfactory response, or not?

Back in the 70s, the US planted something like like 2/3 of its corn acreage in one range of corn varieties - and almost lost the whole thing in one year, to a fungus that had adapted well to a strain used in all those hybrids. Emergency responses of various kinds - fungicides, firebreak harvesting, quick identification of the problem, etc - were made, of course, but that was not all. The response was not "hurray, we have identified the problem and know how to fix it". The response was "We are too dependent on this one kind of corn. We need more diversity, or next time we're going to get hammered." The research efforts were boosted immediately, the development well funded, various prophylactic practices and agencies established as a matter of urgency. The necessary diversity was mandated, by law, for the future. That was a wise response.

We don't have enough diversity in our pollinators of food crops. We are too dependent on a narrow range of honeybee varieties. We need more diversity or next time we are going to get hammered. How hard is that to understand?

Your suggestion isn't at all hard to understand. But it's the implementation that's nearly impossible and impractable. The natural pollinators you keep talking about do not exist in sufficient numbers, little is known about trying to domesticate them to do the job(s) you suggest NOR is hardly anything at all known about what diseases and other things they are susceptible to. On the other hand, a TREMENDOUS amount is known about about the domestic honeybee and a very large industry is already in place to breed, manage and care for them.

Your comparison with that corn problem is not a valid one. I understand the principle behind that - putting all the eggs in one basket - but it's still not close enough to the same situation. With a very few rare exceptions, the honeybee is a universal pollinator And the ONLY one known that will handle almond trees - there is no alternative that we are aware of.

There's nothing wrong with trying to develop alternate pollinators on a low- priority basis but for now the BIG money and BIG research efforts MUST be placed on honeybees. If not, then it could be compared to your corn problem if you assumed that was the ONLY variety of corn available. Because the development of any alternative(s) will take a tremendous amount of time which we don't have and might not pay off anyway.

Read-only is correct that only bees do a good job in most cases, but iceaura is also corrrect that the dominance of only the Italian strain of bees (at least in the US) is a danger that could have disaterous consequences for US food and fiber production - about the only thing US has an natural advantage over China in. (BTW China has started construction on the 7,700km large diameter pipeline to its vast reserves of oil and gas in the western provinces (possibly more energy than in all the middle East - not well explored by western countries because too far from any port and in very mountaneous terrain and fact it belongs to China, not known to be friendly to western oil companies.)

I wonder if flying pollenating "Nanobots" could not be developed in a decade or two. Very small things easily fly or "drift under control" in air currents. Solar collector wings should be more than adequate power source. Could program them to return to their "home box" like bees do as evening approaches. Varriantes, specifically designed for each crop, might be better than bees.

Now probably just a crazy thought, but that is my defect - I can't think with the crowd. For example, now* I am sure US and EU will be in deep depression in 4 + or - 3 years.
----------------------
*The rapid growth of "sovern funds" and "islamic bonds" has removed any slight doubt I had.

sorry to bring back an old thread but I was wondering, are bees still disappearing or have their numbers started to rebound?

According to the Daily Green, its still an issue.

Red Tape Is Made Of Tougher Stuff Than Bees
Almond Trees Are Pollinated, Colony Collapse Disorder Marches On ... And Government Money Goes Nowhere Fast (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/red-tape-55022202)

so when they say the honeybees are gone, do they mean they aren't dead in their hives? They have just vanished?

Yup. They just up and left. Abandoned the queen.

Colony Collapse Disorder (or CCD) is a little-understood phenomenon in which worker bees from a beehive or Western honey bee colony abruptly disappear. While such disappearance has a long-standing history of occurring, the term Colony Collapse Disorder was originally applied to perceived disappearances of Western honey bee colonies in a minority of regions of North America in late 2006.[1]

European beekeepers observed a similar phenomenon in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain[2], and initial reports have also come in from Switzerland and Germany, albeit to a lesser degree.[3] Possible cases of CCD have also been reported in Taiwan since April 2007.[4]

The cause (or causes) of the syndrome is not yet well understood. Theories include environmental change-related stresses,[5] malnutrition, pathogens (i.e., disease[6] including Israel acute paralysis virus[7][8]), mites, pesticides such as neonicotinoids or imidacloprid, radiation from cellular phones or other man-made devices,[9] and genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics such as transgenic maize.[10]

A colony which has collapsed from CCD is generally characterized by all of these conditions occurring simultaneously[15]:

* Complete absence of adult bees in colonies, with little or no build-up of dead bees in or around the colonies.
* Presence of capped brood in colonies. Bees normally will not abandon a hive until the capped brood have all hatched.
* Presence of food stores, both honey and bee pollen:

* i. which are not immediately robbed by other bees
* ii. which when attacked by hive pests such as wax moth and small hive beetle, the attack is noticeably delayed.

Precursor symptoms that may arise before the final colony collapse are:

* Insufficient workforce to maintain the brood that is present
* Workforce seems to be made up of young adult bees
* The Queen is present (i.e. she is not lost)
* The colony members are reluctant to consume provided feed, such as sugar syrup and protein supplement.

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder

There will be a story on Bees on CBS 60 minutes Sunday