Our honey bees are disappearing/dying at an alarming rate

[Ladymuck]

Einstein once said that if the bee disappeared off the face of the earth, that "man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." Whether this 4-year prediction is accurate is debatable. However, given that honey bees pollinate over two-thirds of our crops, the implications for our food security are worrying.

Our Government has pledged ?2 million for research as well as put together a sort of action plan aimed at reversing this trend. Is this enough or are we already too late?

[Huguenot]

Snopes on Bees & Einstein

One tried-and-true method for getting people to pay attention to words is to put them into the mouth of a well-known, respected figure whom the public perceives as being an expert in the subject at hand. To make a point about whether our current political leaders are taking us down the right path, dig up an analogous quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. Or, to comment on the nature of war (e.g., when it should be fought, how it should be fought, or the consequences of fighting it), find a relevant example credited to Robert E. Lee or George S. Patton.

Thus is it that recent concerns over a significant and mysterious decline in the population of pollinating

honeybees (a phenomenon attributed to everything from global warming to insecticides to radiation from cell phone towers, and now thought to be the result of a fungus) have seen a resurgence in repetitions of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, citations claiming the noted scientist once said "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live."

This truly sounds alarming: Bees are disappearing for reasons we can't yet explain, and a certified genius such as Einstein noted long ago that if all the bees disappeared, we'd soon be following them into extinction. If the intent of propagating this quote is to get our attention, it's certainly been working. Did Einstein sagely foresee an environmental crisis we're only just now beginning to notice?

To answer that last question (without denying the importance of the honeybees), we have to consider the related question of "Did Einstein really say this?" First off, searches of Einstein's writings and speeches and public statements, as well as of (scholarly) compilations of Einstein quotations reveal nary a reference to the "four years" phrase or any other statement mentioning bees (save for a brief comparison between humans and colony insects such as ants and bees). The compiler of The New Quotable Einstein also found no Einsteinian source for this quote and lists it as "Probably Not by Einstein."

Secondly, even though Einstein died in 1955, assiduous searching of a variety of databases of historical printed material (e.g., books, newspapers, magazines) has so far failed to turn up any mention of this quote (attributed to Einstein or anyone else) antedating 1994, when it suddenly started popping up in newspaper articles reporting on a protest in Brussels staged by beekeepers:

A pamphlet distributed [in Brussels] by the National Union of French Apiculture quoted Albert Einstein. "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination ... no more men!"

The beekeepers' warnings had some heavyweight expert support. A pamphlet distributed by the National Union of French Apiculture quoted Albert Einstein. "If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live," Einstein was quoted as saying. "No more bees, no more pollination ... no more men!"

Finally, Einstein was, of course, a physicist and not an entomologist or botanist (or any other form of biologist). It's puzzling to imagine a context in which he would have made the statement about bees now attributed to him, or why he would have been perceived as saying something noteworthy that was unknown to his fellow scientists.

The best answer probably lies in examining the context in which the earliest citations of this putative quote (that we've found so far) appeared: a January 1994 political protest staged by European beekeepers over the issues of competition from lower-priced honey imports, artificially high prices for sugar (used as winter feed for bees), and a proposed reduction of tariffs that would make imported honey products even cheaper. A key part of that protest was beekeepers' issuing dire predictions that as beekeepers go, so go the bees ? and as bees go, so go the food crops and other plants on which we depend:

The beekeepers claimed that if they were forced out of business, the honey bee could be eradicated in Europe since wild hives were already being decimated by a parasitic mite called varroa.

So far Scotland has escaped the devastating pest, but the threat elsewhere remains.

"Within a few years all the wild colonies will die out," warned John Potter from Norwich.

"The honey bee is threatened with a rapid decline."

If the bees became extinct, the protesters said the impact would go well beyond the livelihoods of the EU's 16,000 full-time beekeepers and the some 430,000 part-timers.

Crops such as apples, pears, beans and oilseeds need bees for pollination.

British beekeepers estimate that 85 per cent of Europe's wildflowers are pollinated by bees and the death of the flowers could have a major impact on wildlife.

"It's going to be a chain reaction," said Mr Potter.

All in all, this looks like a classic case of a useful quote's being invented and put into the mouth of a famous person for political purposes.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All in all, this looks like a classic case of a

> useful quote's being invented and put into the

> mouth of a famous person for political purposes.

Phew!

A "classic" case...? Einstein's words or not...? These are interesting points Huguenot. However, to (respectfully;-)) revert to the original point, is our Government's ?2million for research/action plan sufficient? Or is it too late?

[Huguenot]

I was quoting from Snopes, they weren't my words.

The 'classic case' refers to the frequency with which this takes place (ref. the first paragraph).

I think they make the point that this quote appears to have been invented long after Einstein's death, and attributed to him for convenience. Hence the association with Einstein confers no merit. It also suggests that it may be commercially/politically driven and have little basis in truth.

None of us are scientists, so it's a little difficult to know if the 2m is valuable or not - do you have anything other than a misappropriated Einstein quote?

Overall the suggestion is that the beekeepers are making mountains out of molehills. Try this article. All the bees aren't dead, they're just undergoing a bit of a pounding from a new-ish parasite.

The beekepers themselves only estimate the value of damage to be 150m, which in an economy of 2.3 trn isn't exactly our number one priority.

The max requested even by the beekeepers is 8m quid over 5 years, so I don't think it's unreasonable for DEFRA to allocate 2m and then review developments later?

It's altogether likely that this is just another one of those red herrings put about by the lunatic fringe of the eco-movement that brings them into disrepute.

I've no doubt that there are individuals on the forum that will see this as yet another sign of the end of the world, but in taking such extreme views they marginalise themselves.

[PeckhamRose]

They're not doing bad in the cities though, and I myself took up the invitation by Southwark Council - when seeing a flyer at the Southwark In Blooms festival in Peckham Rye Park earlier this year - to go on a southwark funded free bee keeping course run by Barnaby Shaw at Walworth City Garden. Whilst I can't keep them personally, I learned a lot about the problems and the workings of the hive, and also learned that indeed bees are doing very well in city hives.

But at Sopers the other day they wanted ?4.85 I think it was for a small jar. Which I can't afford!

I think putting money into trying to find an answer to the problem is a good idea, yes.

And I am sorry my little contribution to this debate was not as interesting or knowledgeable or as well researched as the wonderful Huguenot's!

[louisiana]

The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's imagination, Huguenut.

2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers are still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is not to be sneezed at.

There does not appear to be any single explanation for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest personally that the US experience is not unconnected with the stresses that US agri-business puts on bees.

Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago.

The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have been seriously affected in recent years by government budget. Posts were being lost (cut), just at a time when things were going pear-shaped, which has had a serious impact. Unfortunate. New money means the situation may be recovered, just about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big public stink just to stop essential services being cut. But that's so often the case, here and elsewhere.

There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what it is doing with government funds in this area (as opposed to *research* funds for a range of sources including some from government). BBKA has recently walked away from one major bee-keeping government project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh government and language' should perhaps not have the same weight as 'organisation representing 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting together, whatever government plans.

The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now most definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor and control for various diseases, continuously, you will lose your hives. And even then...

[Huguenot]

I don't think I suggested it was a figment of anyone's imagination did I?

There are certainly those who think it's the end of the world, and plenty who don't - or at least plenty who suggest that throwing money at the problem won't necessarily help. Like we read, the beekeepers only asked for 8m in the first place, and it seems the initial 2m has been granted, with more available if it should prove beneficial. What's to complain?

I can't work out your point on big Pharma - were you implying that they swindled the public? At the same time you also seem to be asking for a remedy from them? It doesn't seem fair to slap them and then beg them to save you?

I didn't understand what you meant about the BBKA walking away from a project because they don't like the Welsh?

I don't see how stress from agri business could only happen in one year? Sounds like another opportunity to take a potshot.

[Burbage]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There

> was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and

> elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's

> imagination, Huguenut.

I'll bite.

It depends on who you talk to, and I'm slightly suspicious of figures compiled purely from those submitted by beekeepers who responded to a survey (there's a risk that the only folk who turn them in are the folk who've lost colonies). Even in the US, colony numbers were only affected in some areas, and seem to be back to normal.

> 2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers are

> still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is

> not to be sneezed at.

And equally many are experiencing none. Or, at least, none that can't be explained otherwise.

> There does not appear to be any single explanation

> for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest

> personally that the US experience is not

> unconnected with the stresses that US

> agri-business puts on bees.

The USDA's National Honey Reports make interesting reading. US honey exports are up by around 30% from 2006, and imports have risen a little (though imports still vastly outweigh exports). The price of almonds (a crop that relies heavily on bees) has been sliding for the last three years in the wake of bumper harvests.

The point at which commercial operators running on tight margins start lobbying governments comes a little sooner than for others. Especially, I notice, in places which have had odd weather (the last poor almond harvest may have been due to CCD, but a lack of water might also have been relevant). The price of packages of bees is still under $20, suggesting no great shortage, yet the price of hiring a hive for pollination has nearly doubled. In addition, reports suggest that growers are getting fed up with beekeepers fobbing them off with under-strength colonies. Whether that's symptomatic of sickly bees or folk watering down their colonies to maximise their income, is a cynic's guess. Whatever the truth, there may be more to CCD than meets the microscope. Definitive official statistics don't seem to exist for all US bees at present, but those for New York State show fairly large year-to-year variations, but a fairly steady long-term decline, of about 45% overall, since a peak in 1947, and a slight decrease is what you'd expect against that trend.

The USDA's statistics department does release partial numbers each February. Recent ones go like this (numbers are thousands of colonies)

2004/5 - 2556 - 100% (relative to 04/5)

2005/6 - 2410 - 94%

2006/7 - 2392 - 93%

2007/8 - 2442 - 95% ('wipe-out'?)

2008/9 - 2301 - 90% ('not as bad'?)

There's a decline shown, but year-on-year, it's not unreasonable. Although these figures aren't the whole picture, and only show honey-producing colonies, rather than those pimped for pollination, it's difficult to see why there would be much difference, given they're the same species. Either CCD is making moral judgements, or the bees used for pollination aren't being treated well. In that light, CCD is more likely to be due to commercial pressures than anything else, and slightly less deserving of taxpayers' money than it might be.

> Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few

> years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies

> proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago.

The remedies were pyrethroids, familiar to gardeners for decades. They were used because they worked but, because mites reproduce rapidly, and they were used haphazardly, the mites developed immunity quickly. That's no different from how MRSA developed, and the pharmaceutical industry isn't being blamed for that.

> The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have

> been seriously affected in recent years by

> government budget. Posts were being lost (cut),

> just at a time when things were going pear-shaped,

> which has had a serious impact.

Monitoring hasn't been much affected, as far as I know. In fact, through the use of GIS over the last ten years, and the development of BeeBase, monitoring here is likely to be better than ever. Research has suffered, chiefly through the closure of Rothamsted, but new initiatives are coming on stream. It would be nice to have lots of money spent, but we're not alone, and it's sensible to pool our efforts with European partners rather than spend lots of money replicating their research.

New

> money means the situation may be recovered, just

> about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big

> public stink just to stop essential services being

> cut. But that's so often the case, here and

> elsewhere.

The new money is for pollinator research, which includes moths and all sorts of non-honey bees. About a tenth of it's going to honeybee research, though what they'll research is still a matter of debate. As has been pointed out, the US did put serious money into CCD research, but to no great effect. I don't suggest the gamble wasn't worth taking, but spending more money won't necessarily 'improve' the results.

> There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what it

> is doing with government funds in this area (as

> opposed to *research* funds for a range of sources

> including some from government). BBKA has recently

> walked away from one major bee-keeping government

> project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh

> government and language' should perhaps not have

> the same weight as 'organisation representing

> 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole

> thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting

> together, whatever government plans.

DEFRA's allocation of resources is a mystery unto DEFRA. But they did consult on, and published this year, a national Bee Health Strategy which has gained consensus in promoting best practice without unduly burdening beekeepers or panic-mongering. The Bee Inspectors, the resources and training provided by the National Bee Unit and the strategy itself are very good indeed and, to my mind, provide a robust framework for sustainable, inclusive beekeeping. That deserves some praise (though we should still complain about it, to keep them on their toes).

On the other hand, the BBKA remains happy to endorse the products of the agrochemical business (presumably 'big pharma'), and there are more than a few awkward sorts who wonder why the BBKA is so cosy with producers of the nicotinamide pesticides that the French beekeepers are so upset about.

> The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now most

> definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor

> and control for various diseases, continuously,

> you will lose your hives. And even then...

It never was, and the same applies to children and goldfish. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even Yucca plants can die of neglect.

Apologies for biting so comprehensively. Sceptics in search of references will find most of the numbers scattered about at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. I won't cite all the documents as I've got better things to do on a Friday night.

[Burbage]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There

> was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and

> elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's

> imagination, Huguenut.

I'll bite.

It depends on who you talk to, and I'm slightly suspicious of figures compiled purely from those submitted by beekeepers who responded to a survey (there's a risk that the only folk who turn them in are the folk who've lost colonies). Even in the US, colony numbers were only affected in some areas, and seem to be back to normal.

> 2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers are

> still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is

> not to be sneezed at.

And equally many are experiencing none. Or, at least, none that can't be explained otherwise.

> There does not appear to be any single explanation

> for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest

> personally that the US experience is not

> unconnected with the stresses that US

> agri-business puts on bees.

The USDA's National Honey Reports make interesting reading. US honey exports are up by around 30% from 2006, and imports have risen a little (though imports still vastly outweigh exports). The price of almonds (a crop that relies heavily on bees) has been sliding for the last three years in the wake of bumper harvests.

The point at which commercial operators running on tight margins start lobbying governments comes a little sooner than for others. Especially, I notice, in places which have had odd weather (the last poor almond harvest may have been due to CCD, but a lack of water might also have been relevant). The price of packages of bees is still under $20, suggesting no great shortage, yet the price of hiring a hive for pollination has nearly doubled. In addition, reports suggest that growers are getting fed up with beekeepers fobbing them off with under-strength colonies. Whether that's symptomatic of sickly bees or folk watering down their colonies to maximise their income, is a cynic's guess. Whatever the truth, there may be more to CCD than meets the microscope. Definitive official statistics don't seem to exist for all US bees at present, but those for New York State show fairly large year-to-year variations, but a fairly steady long-term decline, of about 45% overall, since a peak in 1947, and a slight decrease is what you'd expect against that trend.

The USDA's statistics department does release partial numbers each February. Recent ones go like this (numbers are thousands of colonies)

2004/5 - 2556 - 100% (relative to 04/5)

2005/6 - 2410 - 94%

2006/7 - 2392 - 93%

2007/8 - 2442 - 95% ('wipe-out'?)

2008/9 - 2301 - 90% ('not as bad'?)

There's a decline shown, but year-on-year, it's not unreasonable. Although these figures aren't the whole picture, and only show honey-producing colonies, rather than those pimped for pollination, it's difficult to see why there would be much difference, given they're the same species. Either CCD is making moral judgements, or the bees used for pollination aren't being treated well. In that light, CCD is more likely to be due to commercial pressures than anything else, and slightly less deserving of taxpayers' money than it might be.

> Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few

> years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies

> proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago.

The remedies were pyrethroids, familiar to gardeners for decades. They were used because they worked but, because mites reproduce rapidly, and they were used haphazardly, the mites developed immunity quickly. That's no different from how MRSA developed, and the pharmaceutical industry isn't being blamed for that.

> The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have

> been seriously affected in recent years by

> government budget. Posts were being lost (cut),

> just at a time when things were going pear-shaped,

> which has had a serious impact.

Monitoring hasn't been much affected, as far as I know. In fact, through the use of GIS over the last ten years, and the development of BeeBase, monitoring here is likely to be better than ever. Research has suffered, chiefly through the closure of Rothamsted, but new initiatives are coming on stream. It would be nice to have lots of money spent, but we're not alone, and it's sensible to pool our efforts with European partners rather than spend lots of money replicating their research.

New

> money means the situation may be recovered, just

> about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big

> public stink just to stop essential services being

> cut. But that's so often the case, here and

> elsewhere.

The new money is for pollinator research, which includes moths and all sorts of non-honey bees. About a tenth of it's going to honeybee research, though what they'll research is still a matter of debate. As has been pointed out, the US did put serious money into CCD research, but to no great effect. I don't suggest the gamble wasn't worth taking, but spending more money won't necessarily 'improve' the results.

> There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what it

> is doing with government funds in this area (as

> opposed to *research* funds for a range of sources

> including some from government). BBKA has recently

> walked away from one major bee-keeping government

> project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh

> government and language' should perhaps not have

> the same weight as 'organisation representing

> 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole

> thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting

> together, whatever government plans.

DEFRA's allocation of resources is a mystery unto DEFRA. But they did consult on, and published this year, a national Bee Health Strategy which has gained consensus in promoting best practice without unduly burdening beekeepers or panic-mongering. The Bee Inspectors, the resources and training provided by the National Bee Unit and the strategy itself are very good indeed and, to my mind, provide a robust framework for sustainable, inclusive beekeeping. That deserves some praise (though we should still complain about it, to keep them on their toes).

On the other hand, the BBKA remains happy to endorse the products of the agrochemical business (presumably 'big pharma'), and there are more than a few awkward sorts who wonder why the BBKA is so cosy with producers of the nicotinamide pesticides that the French beekeepers are so upset about.

> The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now most

> definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor

> and control for various diseases, continuously,

> you will lose your hives. And even then...

It never was, and the same applies to children and goldfish. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even Yucca plants can die of neglect.

Apologies for biting so comprehensively. Sceptics in search of references will find most of the numbers scattered about at http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. I won't cite all the documents as I've got better things to do on a Friday night.

[Huguenot]

Bee pimping. Excellent.

[Huguenot]

Bee pimping. Excellent.

[louisiana]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think I suggested it was a figment of

> anyone's imagination did I?

You used the words "red herrings", "lunatic fringe" and "extreme views" amongst others. Your views, or those of others? Hard to tell, as you quoted widely without quotation marks or other indicators.

"Figment" and "imagination" seem quite tame in comparison, non?

>

> There are certainly those who think it's the end

> of the world, and plenty who don't - or at least

> plenty who suggest that throwing money at the

> problem won't necessarily help. Like we read, the

> beekeepers only asked for 8m in the first place,

> and it seems the initial 2m has been granted, with

> more available if it should prove beneficial.

> What's to complain?

>

> I can't work out your point on big Pharma - were

> you implying that they swindled the public? At the

> same time you also seem to be asking for a remedy

> from them? It doesn't seem fair to slap them and

> then beg them to save you?

I said "Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a few years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago."

I don't see the word swindle there, or anything similar. Do you? The fact is that the remedies then proposed don't work now, and stopped working shortly after introduction, so in a very short space of time something that was widely proposed (and hoped for) as "the solution" stopped being so. That is all. We have very similar patterns with other drug types (over different time spans). There is no intention there at all of indicating blame or suggesting deception. Merely an indication of what often happens with proposed remedies.

The term "big pharma" is widely used as shorthand for 'the major multinational pharmaceutical companies'. It's a lot shorter. They're the ones that often come up with new products (in contrast to small national pharma copycats). There is no implicit perjorative meaning.

This time and experience did prove to be a step-change, though, as it then meant accepting that there was no solution, and that varroa would become endemic; that it could not be erradicated. There may have been a reluctance in some quarters to accept such a position; not sure. But I think there is acceptance now.

>

> I didn't understand what you meant about the BBKA

> walking away from a project because they don't

> like the Welsh?

Not because they don't like the Welsh. Because they felt unhappy about non-beekeeping interest groups having equal influence at the table with those representing beekeepers. Being Welsh does not necessarily make you an expert on bees perhaps? Or perhaps the Welsh have their own varieties of Welsh-speaking bees :-S

In general, this is so often an issue where people put money on the table and then expect decision-making input for themselves regardless of knowledge, representativeness or whatever.

>

> I don't see how stress from agri business could

> only happen in one year? Sounds like another

> opportunity to take a potshot.

If you've done some reading around, you'll understand that many are casting around for possible explanations. At present, all are theories, and it's likely that there are many possible explanations which have combined in complex ways. As I pointed out in my post "There does not appear to be any single explanation for what we are seeing..."

Would you say that's a potshot position? Really?

Stress from agri-business will happen in many years, and there will also be efforts to take remedial action over time in response to events. So what happens out there cannot be regarded as a controlled experiment. There are too many things changing over time to permit a set of figures to be interpreted in a simple way.

The agri-business experience with bees is also very different in the US from the UK. Which is why the US experience is not necessarily that relevant to the UK.

[louisiana]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> louisiana Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The worst year for honey bees was 2007/8. There

> > was a fairly major wipe-out, in the US and

> > elsewhere. This was not a figment of anyone's

> > imagination, Huguenut.

>

> I'll bite.

>

>

> It depends on who you talk to, and I'm slightly

> suspicious of figures compiled purely from those

> submitted by beekeepers who responded to a survey

> (there's a risk that the only folk who turn them

> in are the folk who've lost colonies).

Quite. So the figures from BeeBase are also highly suspect.

Of course all figures have to be treated with caution. Unfortunately, as many beekeepers are keeping bees without any central record (there are still many not on BeeBase), it is quite difficult to gather figures. And of course until beekeepers started to experience serious problems, they often did not consider it necessary to be part of any such exercise.

Even in the

> US, colony numbers were only affected in some

> areas, and seem to be back to normal.

>

> > 2008/9 has not been as bad. But many keepers

> are

> > still experiencing 25-30% colony loss. Which is

> > not to be sneezed at.

>

> And equally many are experiencing none. Or, at

> least, none that can't be explained otherwise.

>

> > There does not appear to be any single

> explanation

> > for what we are seeing, though I'd suggest

> > personally that the US experience is not

> > unconnected with the stresses that US

> > agri-business puts on bees.

>

> The USDA's National Honey Reports make interesting

> reading.

They do. But to what extent would you say the bee business in the US is comparable to that in the UK? The 'mobile task force' aspect for example?

>

> > Varroa mite is not new. But it is now (as of a

> few

> > years ago) resistant to the so-called remedies

> > proposed by big pharma just 10-15 years ago.

>

> The remedies were pyrethroids, familiar to

> gardeners for decades. They were used because they

> worked but, because mites reproduce rapidly, and

> they were used haphazardly, the mites developed

> immunity quickly. That's no different from how

> MRSA developed, and the pharmaceutical industry

> isn't being blamed for that.

>

Who is blaming big pharma for that?

It came up with treatments, a short while later the treatments proved not effective. This is a common pattern.

>

> > The UK bee research and monitoring efforts have

> > been seriously affected in recent years by

> > government budget. Posts were being lost (cut),

> > just at a time when things were going

> pear-shaped,

> > which has had a serious impact.

>

> Monitoring hasn't been much affected, as far as I

> know. In fact, through the use of GIS over the

> last ten years, and the development of BeeBase,

> monitoring here is likely to be better than ever.

BeeBase is taking off, but it's unfortunate they chose a name already used by so may other projects. Monitoring will improve.

> Research has suffered, chiefly through the closure

> of Rothamsted, but new initiatives are coming on

> stream. It would be nice to have lots of money

> spent, but we're not alone, and it's sensible to

> pool our efforts with European partners rather

> than spend lots of money replicating their

> research.

Absolutely.

>

> New

> > money means the situation may be recovered,

> just

> > about. It shouldn't be necessary to make a big

> > public stink just to stop essential services

> being

> > cut. But that's so often the case, here and

> > elsewhere.

>

> The new money is for pollinator research, which

> includes moths and all sorts of non-honey bees.

Which has led to all kinds of side arguments about why the focus should be on honey bees and less generally on all pollinators. When there's a given limited pot, people will inevitably fight over it.

> About a tenth of it's going to honeybee research,

> though what they'll research is still a matter of

> debate. As has been pointed out, the US did put

> serious money into CCD research, but to no great

> effect. I don't suggest the gamble wasn't worth

> taking, but spending more money won't necessarily

> 'improve' the results.

Quite.

>

> > There continue to be issues with DEFRA and what

> it

> > is doing with government funds in this area (as

> > opposed to *research* funds for a range of

> sources

> > including some from government). BBKA has

> recently

> > walked away from one major bee-keeping

> government

> > project, for some very good reasons. ('Welsh

> > government and language' should perhaps not

> have

> > the same weight as 'organisation representing

> > 15,000 bee-keepers'.) In a sense, this whole

> > thing has galvanised bee-keepers into acting

> > together, whatever government plans.

>

> DEFRA's allocation of resources is a mystery unto

> DEFRA. But they did consult on, and published this

> year, a national Bee Health Strategy which has

> gained consensus in promoting best practice

> without unduly burdening beekeepers or

> panic-mongering.

Really? Consensus? I seem to recall reading in various publications recently that BBKA has abandoned the Healthy Bees Plan (HBP) Project Board. And Dr Helen Crews (Head of Inspectorates at FERA) also went to the press with her comments on this move, expressing her "disappointment" at BBKA's move. And Tim Lovett (president of BBKA) did likewise, expressing different and opposing views. It doesn't look like a consensus situation to me. BBKA has effectively declared UDI with respect to promoting honey bee health and education. Lovett said the project as run by FERA "will deliver little if any worthwhile outcomes for bees and beekeepers". Fairly strong words from a not very militant institution.

The Bee Inspectors, the resources

> and training provided by the National Bee Unit and

> the strategy itself are very good indeed and, to

> my mind, provide a robust framework for

> sustainable, inclusive beekeeping. That deserves

> some praise (though we should still complain about

> it, to keep them on their toes).

>

> On the other hand, the BBKA remains happy to

> endorse the products of the agrochemical business

> (presumably 'big pharma'), and there are more than

> a few awkward sorts who wonder why the BBKA is so

> cosy with producers of the nicotinamide pesticides

> that the French beekeepers are so upset about.

Ah, don't forget the Germans. They too are not happy.

It's certainly a bone of contention for many, and not just in France and Germany.

>

> > The only certainty is that bee-keeping is now

> most

> > definitely not hands off. If you do not monitor

> > and control for various diseases, continuously,

> > you will lose your hives. And even then...

>

> It never was,

Over history, there has never been more bee disease than now. That is a step change and needs to be dealt with. Hence the increasing promotion of BeeBase, inspectors, research etc. Beekeepers need to contend with what they have not had to content with before.

and the same applies to children and

> goldfish. Unfortunately, we live in a world where

> even Yucca plants can die of neglect.

I'd suggest that an integrated management system for bee diseases is a little more involved than watering a yucca plant or feeding a goldfish. As I say, there has been a step change. People have to deal with that, and we are seeing the fall-out of that rearrangement of the goal-posts.

>

> Apologies for biting so comprehensively. Sceptics

> in search of references will find most of the

> numbers scattered about at

> http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. I won't cite all

> the documents as I've got better things to do on a

> Friday night.

How about some UK sources? Or European ones? After all, this is the UK, and we don't have a range of the agri-business dynamics present in the US.

[Huguenot]

So what do you actually want, Lousiana?

What's your plan?