Jump to content

Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

AIDS causes CCD?

I removed the AIDS possibility entirely. It looks to me like a joke; no references anywhere. That humans and honeybees could share a virus is almost as ludicrous as the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. If anyone can provide a moderately credible reference, I'll eat my virtual shorts. Garykempen (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GM crops to blame?

I keep hearing that GM crops deserve scrutiny, and that beneficial pollinators are being killed by toxic pollen containing pesticide genes. Are there any good studies that support this connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.245.170 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidently, no, not a single one. Lots of finger-pointing, and no evidence. It makes no sense, either - beneficial pollinators (99% of which are native bees) don't visit corn for pollen (corn is wind-pollinated, so most bees aside from honey bees don't ever gather corn pollen). Nearly all of the so-called "toxic pollen" out there is corn pollen, and therefore doesn't enter the pollinator food chain. As for honey bees, no one has yet found any effects or correlation between GM corn pollen and CCD. Plenty of colonies die off without ever going anywhere within 100 miles of GM corn, and other colonies smack dab in the middle of GM corn country are thriving. Blaming GM pollen for honey bee dieoff is a complete red herring. If there's anything "man-made" to be suspicious of, it's imidacloprid, and even that doesn't have much evidence supporting a link to CCD. Dyanega (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
See the next section. Not just imidacloprid, and not imidacloprid in its entirety. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the language "no evidence whatsoever"... to more accurately reflect what seems to be the current scientific understanding, that the little evidence that exists doesn't say it's bad. There's also some broken links (MAAREC / PSU is a link to too many studies to be effective in supporting the claims) that I wanted to address but I'm just too tired tonight. Someone else can take that one on. Garykempen (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Media Portrayal

I am going to remove the sentence: "The Happening (2008 film) is a supernatural thriller that has humans committing a similar mass hara-kiri and dismisses the disappearing honeybees as "An act of nature that we'll never fully understand"." for the following reasons:

  • no one is claiming bees are committing suicide (that I know of?);
  • "hara-kiri" is a complete red herring here;
  • disappearance of honey bees was not integral to the plot and only got a passing mention;
  • I am against listing every passing mention of a topic in a movie, as it serves no useful purpose. Zatoichi26 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality in the Imidacloprid section

The section on Imidacloprid states rather unequivocally that Imidacloprid is the cause of CCD. My understanding, and the position taken by the rest of the article, is that the cause of CCD is still highly uncertain, so perhaps the Imidacloprid section should be toned down. Beastinwith (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"Low frequency fields"?

"Mobile phone handsets produce low-frequency magnetic fields during operation due to currents flowing in their power supply circuits..." Where did this come from? Handset power supply circuits produce high frequency magnetic fields, way above the 10 to 60 Hz mentioned in the only cited article. Is this just OR? CouldOughta (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment

This article has just been reassessed per the GA:SWEEPS. Although a very good and informative page, there are some minor concerns and problems that have been identified. See here. If these issues are not addressed it will be grounds for delisting the article immediately should it be put up for review again. Any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 10:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

2009-2010 bad winter

--88.139.214.229 (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC) (sorry, no account)

2009-2010 bad winter in the US seems to have worsened things. As I'm not an english native-speaker, I won't post in the article - but I think this paper provides new and interesting things: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100324/D9EKVVQG0.html. If someone decides to update the article, it would be great.

Thanks, Fred.

Maps

General question is there a map of the affected area's, and or do we know of any data sets that could be used to make one? ~Wellstone

CCD Is Real

Over the years certain people here have been very effective at censoring information they don't happen to like (such as possible links between GMOs and CCD - see talk page above and the archives). They also have strongly implied that CCD doesn't even exist. One gets the idea that these are people in the employ of Big Ag which does not want to see ANY change whatsoever in those practices that have made them rich to this point.

I would like to link to the following article to address the last point, that CCD is not a real phenomenon:

Fears for crops as shock figures from America show scale of bee catastrophe. The world may be on the brink of biological disaster after news that a third of US bee colonies did not survive the winter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/02/food-fear-mystery-beehives-collapse

Spin away. 4.246.207.4 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rule 0 of the internet my friend, there is no cabal. People are removing it or denying it because they are unsure if CCD is a single case of something going wrong. Also it seems you're the one bent on spinning the facts, GMOs and things like fertilizers/pesticides are almost certainly not the case. The spread of CCD follows a pattern similar to the spread of biological illnesses (ie mad cow disease, swine flu etc) so it's most certainly a biotic factor. It's simply too fast to be attributed to agricultural methods... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, 99. If you think that researchers have ruled out pesticides then you've been living on another planet. For example see [3]. Again, though I am not maintaining that GMOs are causing CCD, they "have not been ruled out". On the other hand, there has been extraodinary effort to rule it out in this article. See above. But it sounds like you know the causes, so why don't you clue us all in? 4.246.205.35 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Of this one third loss, how much was from CCD and how much was conventional losses from bad weather? I understand that it was a cold winter in a lot of places. Paul Studier (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually this was one of the warmest winters on record [4]. 4.246.205.35 (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Strange, from Winter storms of 2009–2010: Very cold and/or snowy weather was reported across the Northern Hemisphere, with many severe cases being reported in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland, Finland, Russia, India, South Korea, China and Japan over the winter of 2009-2010. Still does not answer my question. Does anyone know how many of the losses are from CCD and how many are ordinary winter losses? Paul Studier (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Not strange really, to be expected in a warming world - for awhile at least. This might help [5].
Basically, the greater amount of snow has to do with increased amounts of evaporative water vapor in the air which is in turn caused by increasing warming. A quote: "... as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow.... Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent.... There is also evidence of an increase in the intensity of storms in both the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere, with greater confidence in the increases occurring in high latitudes (Kunkel et al., 2008). The northward shift is projected to continue, and strong cold season storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent, with greater wind speeds and more extreme wave heights." Note: this is only until the earth warms enough that winter temperatures are no longer cold enough for it to snow, "In the longer term, lake-effect snows are likely to decrease as temperatures continue to rise, with the precipitation then falling as rain".
Ordinary losses are around 10%-20% I believe. This winter's was over 33%, a continuing trend. 4.246.206.66 (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion on the Africanized bee talk page says that "Colony Collapse Disorder" was only affecting managed bees and not the Africanized bees. Is it true that the Africanized bees will be the niche in our ecosystem should the other bee species go extinct? GVnayR (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Africanized bees are the same species as the managed honey bees, Apis mellifera. There is no risk of this species going extinct, and this is the only bee species (out of over 20,000 known) that is affected by CCD. Other bee species, such as various bumble bees, are going extinct, but these extinctions are due to habitat loss, or other diseases such as Nosema. Dyanega (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
So the other 19999 bee species in the world are dying because of other diseases and human expansion instead of this so-called "pandemic" of colony collapse disorder? That's great news to hear about the rumors of CCD killing off all the world's bees turned out to be incorrect after all. If we all built our fancy new condos and businesses using methods that don't cut down forests or impede with established apiaries, we wouldn't have to worry about the bees going extinct. Someday, we're going to have the technology to build cities underground and in Antarctica but only as long as the bees keep pollinating our flowers. GVnayR (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Your first two sentences are essentially correct, except that most of those other 20,000 bees are not going extinct. No one knows for sure, but the figure is probably somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of known species are either extinct or in serious decline in the past 100 years. Virtually all of that is due to habitat loss, as is the case with the vast majority of terrestrial extinctions (other than vertebrates). The problem with what you hear in the news is that over 90% of the population is unaware that there is more than one species of bee, so the media constantly screws things up. It's like saying "Birds are going extinct". Anyone older than the age of 3 would know to ask "Wait a second - WHICH birds?" Dyanega (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
6000 bee species are going extinct? That's awful to hear. On Nostradamus 2012, they said that the disappearing bee population would end the world by December 21, 2012. However, I don't believe in anything related to 2012 because the solar system will keep going on for another five billion years. Who knows? Maybe intelligent life will form on Mars two billion years from now once the sun had made it warm enough for life to viably exist. I am aware of a few species of bees: wasps, hornets, bumble bees, and Africanized killer bees. My grandmother is a news hound and tries to watch the news two times a day. Personally, I steer away from the media unless it's Wikipedia or MSN News. How could 90% of the English-speaking world not know the difference between a wasp and a bumblebee? That's so barbaric. GVnayR (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
To GVnayR: According to our article Wasp, "The term wasp is typically defined as any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor ant.". So a wasp is not a bee. According to our article Hornet, "Hornets are the largest eusocial wasps; ...". So hornets are wasps rather than bees. Also Africanized bees are not a separate species from honey bees. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add this external link, but I do not understand the format being used.

This page is on my watchlist. -- Wavelength (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Role of Oxalic Acid?

I don't have the expertise to contribute much to this discussion, but a friend who's a microbiologist sent me the following, and I wondered if anyone knows of any research to support or refute her idea? Here's what she wrote to me:

"You had sent me an e-mail regarding bees and the colony collapse disorder. One plague of bees is the varroa mite. One treatment for varroa mites is oxalic acid. I looked at some honey through the microscope and found calcium oxalate raphide crystals in the wild honey and well, none, or broken up crystals in the store-processed (heated) honey."

Thoughts? Ohiostandard (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by honeybees These references do show that bees are affected by mag fields and orrient there combs accordingly, and that external mag fields make them agressive. http://www.springerlink.com/content/w47llxg4042415p4/

Journal Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 0340-7594 (Print) 1432-1351 (Online) Issue Volume 157, Number 1 / January, 1985 DOI 10.1007/BF00611096 Pages 67-71 Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences SpringerLink Date Sunday, December 12, 2004

Add to marked items Add to shopping cart Add to saved items Permissions & Reprints Recommend this article



Conditioned responding to magnetic fields by honeybees Michael M. Walker1, 2 and M. E. Bitterman1

(1) Békésy Laboratory of Neurobiology, University of Hawaii, 1993 East-West Road, 96822 Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (2) Present address: Southwest Fisheries Center, National Fisheries Service, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, P.O. Box 271, 92038 La Jolla, California, USA

Accepted: 25 February 1985

Summary Individual honeybees were trained in two experiments to come for sucrose solution to a target set on a shelf before an open laboratory window. On some visits, the target was presented in the ambient geomagnetic field, and on other visits in a field modified in the vicinity of the target by passing a direct current through a coil under the shelf. The target contained 50% sucrose when it was in one of the two fields and 20% sucrose when it was in the other. Tested subsequently with a pair of targets, one in the ambient field, one in the modified field, and both containing tap water, the animals significantly preferred the target in the field in which they had been given the 50% sucrose during training. Four modified fields, produced with different coils and currents, were discriminated equally well from the ambient field, and performance was as good when the 50% sucrose was given in the ambient field as when it was given in the modified field. Data are provided also to illustrate the excellent discriminative performance attainable when two targets are presented on each training visit — one in a modified field, the other in the ambient field — and choice of one is rewarded with 50% sucrose while choice of the other is punished with mild electric shock. Our results show that foragers attend to magnetic stimuli at the feeding site and that discriminative training techniques are appropriate for the study of magnetoreception and its mechanism in honeybees.

Breakdown of coevolution?

Has anyone considered the possibility that CCD is caused by a breakdown of coevolution between honeybees as pollinators and flowering plants as suppliers of nutrients? Beekeepers truck bees to places where they are needed. Perhaps this is done without adequate regard for whether the plants being serviced are adequately supplying the nutritional needs of the bees. If so, the plants might cease to evolve to meet those needs. And so the bees eventually die of nutritional deficiency. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The possibility that poor nutrition underlies CCD has been investigated, and nothing suggests that this is a primary factor in CCD, though anything that weakens the immune system (including malnutrition) can potentially contribute. It certainly has nothing to do with coevolution, because the evolution of agricultural plants is entirely through artificial selection; they can only coevolve with pollinators if natural selection is operating. More significant is that many of the crops that honey bees are used to pollinate did NOT coevolve with honey bees, as honey bees are restricted in nature to Africa, Europe, and Asia; all insect-pollinated crops originating in the Americas or Australia have coevolved with pollinators other than honey bees. That being said, there are very few bee-pollinated plants that do not provide appropriate nutrients for honey bees - if there's a problem, it's generally the quantity of food (i.e., too many honey bees crammed into too small a field), not its quality. Dyanega (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I bow to your superior knowledge of bee nutrition.
2. Even a variety of plant subject to selection by humans may also be subject to selection by natural forces.
3. After honeybees were introduced into North America, plants which were able to be pollinated by bees began to evolve to attract them. To keep nearby hives alive and to prevent the bees from developing a bias against them, those plants also evolve to supply the bees with any micro-nutrients which bees need. Human interference with the bee-plant relationship would tend to slow or stop that evolution.
JRSpriggs (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The plants in North America have not begun to evolve to attract honey bees; there are over 5,000 species of bees native to the US, and those native bees are the only species with which native plants have coevolved. Honey bees are outsiders - none of our native plants need honey bees to survive, and they have not evolved in any way so as to make them more attractive to this invasive bee species, except as people may have artificially selected them to do (thus, it excludes all wild plants). Every honey bee in North America could vanish tomorrow, and only the agricultural plants would be negatively impacted; the native wild plants - which have relied on native bees for tens of thousands of years - would do just fine, unless people have already wiped out their corresponding native bees. It's like claiming that dogs and cats that have escaped into the wild are performing a valuable service there, when the reality is that any domesticated animal that escapes from domestication is likely to be doing more harm than good - and that goes for honey bees, too. I've studied bees my whole adult life, and there's not one warm, fuzzy emotion that should be attached to honey bees once they've escaped into the wild in an area where they are not native. They're dangerous, and they're disruptive. ANY organism that doesn't belong is bad news for an ecosystem. Colony collapse is bad news because it impacts agriculture, NOT because it is threatening the bees or the ecosystem. It's an economic disaster, not an ecological disaster. To this day, it baffles me why people are unable or unwilling to make that distinction. If there were a disease that was slowly wiping out every chicken in North America, and affecting no other species of bird, I don't think anyone would be talking about the ecological implications. Dyanega (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that evolution can change a population faster than most people imagine, for fast reproducing animals like bees within a hundred years easily.
I live in the suburbs of Washington DC. I used to see many bees visiting clover, dandelion, and other flowers. In the last few years, I only see an occasional bumblebee. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bees are NOT fast-reproducing animals. They have one generation a year, and typically fewer than 25 offspring (often as few as 3 or 4). Honey bees can have LESS than one generation per year if they're not well-fed, and on average only one or two offspring in years where they do reproduce. Claiming that bees will evolve dramatically within 100 years (without human intervention) is like expecting birds to do the same - and we've got all sorts of exotic bird species like house sparrows, pigeons, and starlings that have not changed perceptibly in the centuries since they were introduced to the US. Dyanega (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that bees reproduce more slowly than I thought.
Actually, I should have referred to the rate of evolution of the plants that the bees pollinate rather than the rate for the bees.
As for the birds, if the ecological niche which they occupy is the same in US as in Europe, then there would be no selective pressure for visible changes after their introduction here. In other words, the absence of change does not necessarily imply the absence of an ability to change. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Update tag

I added the update tag as there has been a recent study claiming to have solved CCD (This has been added into the lead by someone already) [[6]]. If this is valid, the article may require substantial updating (as it currently explores a range of theories). It would be good if someone with some expertise could have a go (also an expert assessment of the solution may be warranted - its wouldnt be the first time a solution has been found which doesnt get independent verification). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, here's the actual paper. It looks pretty good, but I think we need to wait and see what other scientists make of it before massively changing the article. Even if this is shown to be the cause, I think we should probably keep the other references in some form, mentioning that they were proposed at some point, rather than just deleting it all. Smartse (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the lead authors of that study has already gone on record explicitly rejecting the interpretation that this "solves" CCD. He characterizes it as an important finding of correlation. But it's not necessarily causation and it's certainly not a cure. There is nothing in his paper, for example, that tells you how to get rid of the virus.
I think the finding is strong enough, however, to justify a rewrite that puts most of the tin-foil-hat theories into context and more bluntly says what CCD definitely is not. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Such a rewrite is desirable, but it's going to make a lot of the POV editors unhappy, especially the ones who are insistent on the connections to GMOs and pesticides. Dyanega (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like its worth incorporating the new study as a possible (probable?) cause and then waiting for study replication before considering major revision? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I am removing the update tag. In the first place, Clovis just slapped a tag on without even bothering to add the latest study. Secondly, CCD is far from over. Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. No one is saying that CCD is "over". The {{Update}} tag merely says that the content of the article is no longer complete. A major new study that gets us closer to cause (and definitively rules out many of the crank theories) is an important addition and the article is incomplete without it.
And while it would be nice if Clovis (or you or even me) added the content about the new study, none of us are under any obligation to do so. A proper addition will, as discussed above, require a significant rewrite of the article. I don't yet have time to take on that task. Until one of us does, the Update tag is reasonable. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have added the study. Gandydancer (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that shows why we shouldn't be majorly rewriting the article yet, although maybe we should get rid of the crank theories. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That coverage looked very good to me. Well done, Gandydancer. I've copied some of it across to Bee. --Nigelj (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments! The study was a hard read for me as this is hardly my area of experience. I had a few hives many years ago, but way back then our only concern was a swarm. But I was concerned about all the talk here about the need for a major rewrite. First off, I was concerned about the sensational manner in which the study was presented and the possibility that the author (and pesticide manufacturers) may gain from excluding mention of other possible factors other than the one we have no control over: the climate. Numerous good studies indicate that pesticides do seem to play a large part in the puzzle. As for the other topics, GM crops for instance, I see no reason to delete them, even if they are kept only to present information suggesting that they do not seem to play a part in CCD.Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Organized

Organized per WP:VETMED which follows WP:MEDMOS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Trucking

One of the things that, as far as I know, no one has mentioned yet is the fact that the trucks that move the bees on might be part of the problem. Most trucks now have a satellite transmiter/reciever. It sends a signal powerfull enough to go into space. Even when the driver or dispatcher isn't sending a message, the system automaticaly sends out a GPS location every few minutes. Herogamer (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The hypothesis that migratory beekeeping might have something to do with CCD has been discussed. While there is some correlation with the observed incidence of CCD, it is not perfect. However, we can exclude the hypothesis that a truck's GPS could be the cause.
GPS signals are not sent out to space. The signals are received from space but they are remarkably low power - 50 watts emitted at an altitude of over 12,000 miles. Your local TV station is pumping out many, many times more radiation.
The device in the truck takes in the satellite signals, calculations its own position and then may pass it to home base but does that last step on a conventional ground-based antenna - most often over the cell phone channels. So the only electromagnetic signal from the truck that bees would be differentially exposed to is the same signal they are exposed to from the average cell phone. The "cell phone theory" of CCD has been thoroughly discredited. While some trucks use satellite phones instead, the average power is 50-300 milliwatts, far below the routine exposures that we all get every day. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

re: "leaked" EPA memo

In Dec 2010, the following paragraphs were added to the article. I have removed them pending discussions of the concerns below.

In December 2010 a leaked EPA report shed new light on the causation of Colony Collapse Disorder. It was revealed that the EPA had proceeded to upgrade the registration of Clothianidin (a nicotinoid pesticide produced by Bayer) in the face of protests from its own scientists. The internal documents from EPA place the onus on Clothianidin (and associated nicotinoids) as suspected cause of CCD. This is discussed further below, under Pesticides.
In December 2010 it was revealed that the U.S. EPA had upgraded the "conditional registration" of the Bayer neonicotinoid insecticide Clothianidin to "unconditional registration' -- without revealing this publicly and in the face of protests from EPA scientists. Internal reports from the EPA discussing the toxity of Clothianidin specifically to bees, and implicating this insecticide with Colony Collapse Disorder, were subsequently leaked. <ref> [http:www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents-show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide- Leaked document shows EPA allowed bee-toxic pesticide despite own scientists’ red flags] Grist.org (2010-12-10). Retrieved on 2010-12-26.</ref> The leaked EPA report casts aspersions on Bayer's required study of the impact of Clothianidin on bee colonies, pursuant to the 2004 "conditional registration" of the product by the EPA, and makes a strong case that Clothianidin must be supposed to constitute a prime suspect as principal cause of Colony Collapse Disorder in the United States.<ref>http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-12-10-leaked-documents-show-epa-allowed-bee-toxic-pesticide-</ref>
  1. The report was published, not "leaked". The fact that the press discovered the report in a "leak-site" does not automatically mean that the report was leaked or that its material is in any way more or less credible.
  2. A self-professed "ecological gloom and doom" blog is not exactly an unbiased source. Secondarily sourceable facts are acceptable but their conclusions do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards.
  3. The EPA report itself (which can be read in full at http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Memo_Nov2010_Clothianidin.pdf) is based on a number of studies of clothianidin. And the report does use conclusory language that is strongly negative. However, the authors' conclusions are undercut by the very studies that they cite. For example, when describing one of the studies on page 64 of the EPA report, they report "Overall, there was no difference between colonies from clothianidin-treated and control fields." (The studies discussing oral and contact toxicity are irrelevant since that is not the proposed usage method for this particular pesticide.)
  4. No serious bee researchers are asserting that clothianidin is causally related to CCD. CCD occurs in geographic regions where there is little or no clothianidin in use (including, for example, sections of France where the chemical is banned for other reasons) and CCD does not occur in some areas where clothianidin is heavily used (as reported on BEE-L among beekeepers in Iowa).

So, yes, there is an EPA study that asserts that clothianidin is evil but none of the serious bee researchers seem to be giving that report any special credibility. The underlying studies are worth reading and the EPA report has good links to those studies but its conclusions are no more relevant than any other partisan publication. Rossami (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Avaaz petition

On January 7, 2011, Avaaz.org started a petition against Bayer and neonicotinoid pesticides[7]. I think it should be mentioned in the article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO this is not appropriate for the article. I wish the site would offer information to back up their statement that a ban resulted in a drastic rise in bee populations. This is the kind of information that we could use here. Do you have any information? Gandydancer (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I know this isn't a "water-proof" source, but you can read here that Following France and Germany, last year the Italian Agriculture Ministry suspended the use of a class of pesticides, nicotine-based neonicotinoids, as a "precautionary measure." The compelling results - restored bee populations - prompted the government to uphold the ban.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
That blog post cites no studies, statistics or even any credible anecdotes. Their allegations are contradicted by the studies which are cited in the EPA report (see section immediately above). Rossami (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

hyperactiviey of honey bees in magnetic fields-

http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/warnke_bee_world_76.pdf

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Honey_bee" Categories: B-Class Insects articles | Mid-importance Insects articles | B-Class Agriculture articles | Low-importance Agriculture articles | B-Class Beekeeping articles | Unknown-importance Beekeeping articles | Wikipedia CD Selection

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Phorid fly as possible cause

From Catch the Buzz:

Dr. Joseph DeRisi, UCSF, presented the results from his study of a migratory bee operation. ... DeRisi and his team ... discovered pathogens never before found in honey bees [including] the phorid fly. DeRisi called the phorid fly, "Honey bees' worst nightmare" because these tiny flies deposit their eggs in the abdomen of the bee. The larvae feed on hemolymph and tissues of the head, altering the bee's behavior. The bees leave the hive and do not return, thus it is difficult to find phorids within the colony itself.

I am unaware of any reliable source yet connecting the phorid fly with CCD but that description of behavior sounds suspiciously similar. Does anyone know a good source for related information? Rossami (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Article's summary needs to be reviewed

France's partial ban of certain pesticides ought to be included in the summary of the article.

Also, the last paragraph in the summary should also be reviewed. The conclusion of a news article's review of a research study currently takes precedence over the scientists own conclusion, which contradicts the article summary and is currently omitted from the summary. Please omit the New York Times assessment or include the scientists conclusion in the summary, "Scientists in the project emphasize that their conclusions are not the final word. They suggest that more research is still needed to determine, for example, how further outbreaks might be prevented, and how much environmental factors like heat, cold or drought might play a role. The study did not look into the role that pesticides may play, if any." — comment added by Bluestems (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BE BOLD! and fix it. SmartSE (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I am the one that added that study after talk page discussion (see above). I was very concerned about the way the study was presented and strongly felt that perhaps there was some media hype involved. For instance, I found it odd that the military was referred to as "soldiers".Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

With both of your encouragement, I made the suggested edits. I hope it does the job credibly. Bluestems (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)bluestems.

Nice work. BTW, I don't know when it happened but the NYT ref got messed up. I put it back but can not tell by looking at the entry on the edit page just exactly what to delete. The NYT rather than the Business Week article is necessary for the quote in the lede about more research needed, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Regarding the reference, I returned it to NYT. Bluestems (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)bluestems

Imidacloprid in the lead

I've pulled the paragraph below from the lead because I think it gives undue influence to one theory of causation. Some mention of the imidacloprid controversy is probably appropriate but I tried several times and failed to strike the proper balance. Bringing the paragraph here for more discussion.

My specific concern is not that several countries banned the pesticide but that we are failing to also note that several of those bans have since been lifted. Adding that detail, however, bloated the paragraph to the point that it no longer worked in the lead section. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

from the article
Due to the concern over potential effects of the imidacloprid pesticide Gaucho on honeybees, the pesticide was banned, in 1999 by the French Minister of Agriculture Jean Glavany.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/rapportfin.pdf|title=Imidaclopride utilisé en enrobage de semences (Gaucho) et troubles des abeilles — Rapport final — 18 septembre 2003|accessdate=2007-04-26|date=2003-09-18|language=French|format=PDF |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20061130003627/http://agriculture.gouv.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/rapportfin.pdf |archivedate = November 30, 2006}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbgnetwork.org/355.html|title=France: Governmental report claims BAYER's pesticide GAUCHO responsible for bee-deaths Coalition against Bayer-Dangers is calling for a ban|accessdate=2007-04-26|date=2003-12|language= }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/11/26/millions_of_bees_dead_bayers_gaucho_blamed.htm|title=Millions of bees dead — Bayer's Gaucho blamed|accessdate=2007-04-26|date=2003-11-26|language= }}</ref> Use of the pestacide clothianidin has been prohibited in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia until studies can prove the safety of the product.<ref>http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/38233</ref>
moved content ends


Thanks. I agree. I actually did look (and look, and look!) for a better place to put that information and finally took the easy way out and spliced it in there. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Could you please provide refs which bans have been lifted? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the ban in France (still in effect) should be omitted from the lead. This is significant. An article from 2008 provides additional insight into the ban as well as additional instances of CCD related to the pesticide. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/honeybeePesticideBan.php The ban in France and restricted use of the pesticide by other countries specifically for its suspected connection to CCD should warrant a mention in the lead. 71.231.190.201 (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)bluestems

Clothianidin

EPA PDF http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Memo_Nov2010_Clothianidin.pdf

Background.

Wik-Bee Leaks: EPA Document Shows It Knowingly Allowed Pesticide That Kills Honey Bees

http://www.fastcompany.com/1708896/wiki-bee-leaks-epa-document-reveals-agency-knowingly-allowed-use-of-bee-toxic-pesticide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

already discussed. See 5 sections above. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
From the EPA 2003 memo:
Available data indicate that clothianidin on corn and canola should result in minimal acute toxic risk to birds. However, assessments show that exposure to treated seeds through ingestion may result in chronic toxic risk to non-endangered and endangered small birds (e.g., songbirds) and acute/chronic toxicity risk to non-endangered and endangered mammals. Clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen....The fate and disposition of clothianidin in the environment suggest a compound that is a systemic insecticide that is persistent and mobile, stable to hydrolysis, and has potential to leach to ground water, as well as runoff to surface waters.
The NRDC files a lawsuit in 2008: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/19/11070
The best report (most accurate) I've read: http://www.fastcompany.com/1709448/interview-with-a-bee-leaker-beekeeper-tom-theobald-discusses-the-epas-bee-toxic-pesticide-co Gandydancer (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

reverse psychiatry

Honey is the only natural form of sugar in nature bee's work for honey by collecting pollen. Then the honey they worked so hard for is taken by bee keepers on mass scale and substituted for sugar water. Sugar is artificial bees can tell the difference and to them it has become a placebo a better placebo or artificial sugar could be used artificial sweeteners are more sweeter than pure cane sugar and would be a better reward for the honey bees or putting the bees back on there honey diet until the placebo effect weres off and become effective again phychiatrist are know for treating patients with antiphychotics blocking dopamine recepter the key recepter for plesure thus taking away there patients honey but they offer no placebo this would work good to take the bees honey but offer no placebo or artificial honey, sugar water is commonly used. This way the bees realize someone stole there honey and being the hard little worker bees they are know to make more. If you leave a humming bird feeder up during the winter the humming birds keep comming back for more even if its freezing and they belong down south they will never leave when there is food close by so bees are given substatute honey and are more likly to forget how to make it thereselves. We all now what happens when you go on vacation and leave the cat in the house all alone with knowone to feed it. demesticating bees is not a good idea once we take away there instincked they forget how to work as a hive or group and there society falls apart and dies. urName (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Add link to http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Honey_bee_decline_spreading_globally 99.190.81.6 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this ...?
Wikinews has news on this topic

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Losses had remained stable since the 1990s at 17%-20% per year attributable to a variety of factors, such as mites, diseases, and management stress

This is supported by the given citation ([8]). However, later in the article:

...there were 2.44 million honey-producing hives in the United States as of February 2008, down from 4.5 million in 1980...

Even assuming that there were still 4.5 million bees in 1990, at 20% loss per year, that gives a figure of about 600,000 by the year 2000. What gives?? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

My guess would be that the numbers have been declining at that rate, but that new ones have been started to replace them, meaning that both statements are correct. SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjective data

"Mark my words bees loss is due to gm crops infertility in 3 rd generation rats and hampsters i fed rats Gm feed 3rd generstion stopped producing rabbits smaller brood and also stopped producing 2 3rd generation and I am a farmer not a scientist if i can do a study then theres a fox in the hen house some place Duh!"

This sentence is higly suggestive and not worthy to be noted in a 'Natural Sciences Good Article'. No specifics are added like figures, statistical data, sources, peer-review and can not be claimed as a valid scientific method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kattebelletje (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

UV radiation

Any known research about UV radiation effects on bees, and a possibility that the thinning ozone layer might play a role? I know this is not the place for OR, but if there is research about this the article should probably also be updated... 66.11.179.30 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, bees can see soft ultra-violet and distinguish its polarization. They use the polarization of the Sun's UV to help them navigate. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Parasitic fly

Recent yahoo article referencing Scientific American suggests that CCD is caused by a parasitic fly. Suggest this is worth incorporating. http://news.yahoo.com/zombie-fly-parasite-killing-honeybees-230200867.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.211 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The fly does not cause CCD, and is only suggested as a possible vector of one of the fungi implicated in the disease. This information has already been incorporated. Dyanega (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation NOT needed: Selective commercial breeding and lost genetic diversity in industrial apiculture

The statements made here are based on two articles from respected sources: The Economist magazine, and the British Academe.

The other articles linked themselves have citations which could be brought over to discuss Hybrid Vigor. The danger of monoculture in agriculture is well understood. Nothing said there is incorrect, and the entire statement is in line with current perspectives on Science, as do the two links at the end of the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.135.242 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Depolarization?

Has anyone considered the possibility that particulate pollution may be depolarizing the Sun's light leading to a failure of the bees' navigational abilities? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had a discussion on my talk page about two studies recently added to the article. If it's OK with the other editor, perhaps we can move our conversation here? Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Two new articles in Science implicate neonicotinoids in colony collapse disorder

From Science magazine tomorrow:

"Five years ago, bees made headlines when a mysterious condition called colony collapse disorder decimated honey bee colonies in parts of the United States. Now bees are poised to be in the news again, this time because of evidence that systemic insecticides, a common way to protect crops, indirectly harm these important pollinators. Two field studies reported online this week in Science document problems. In bumble bees, exposure to one such chemical [imidacloprid] leads to a dramatic loss of queens and could help explain the insects' decline. In honey bees, another insecticide [clothianidin thiamethoxam] interferes with the foragers' ability to find their way back to the hive. Researchers say these findings are cause for concern and will increase pressure to improve pesticide testing and regulation."

More popular treatment summarization is available from the BBC who have seen the articles which are embargoed until tomorrow. 70.58.11.42 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A more detailed study (same methodology but more doses and a different interpretation) has already been released on PLoS ONE [9]. That study, unfortunately, got little recognition. While effects were noted, they were at dosages between 5 and 50 times higher than the dosages seen in the field. Rossami (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
There is another PLoS ONE article which used mass spectrometry to suggest multiple exposure routes not previously considered. I believe that has an impact on the actual dosages involved, and in any case both RFID studies involve sublethal doses causing honey bees to fail to return. 70.58.11.42 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Use of Common Pesticide, Imidacloprid, Linked to Bee Colony Collapse" in a Harvard School of Public Health study. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The HBR study has already been discredited for serious failures in methodology. See, for example, here. Rossami (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Err....discedited on a message board by "Randy Oliver"?... Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That would be Randy Oliver, publisher of [scientificbeekeeping.com/ Scientific Beekeeping], frequent author in [www.americanbeejournal.com/bAmerican Bee Journal] and widely respected researcher and commercial beekeeper. Yes, his credentials are good. BEE-L, by the way, is the premier discussion board for "informed discussion of beekeeping issues and bee biology". It is not just some message board. Rossami (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Randy Oliver may have a conflict of interest. I'm not accusing Oliver of impropriety; a conflict of interest is a structural condition. In this case, Monsanto creates the adhesives used in imidacloprid application, and Oliver has run trials for Monsanto subsidiary Beeologics (albeit before the buyout, but we have no visibility of the stakeholder's knowledge). Carnitas con guac (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what HBR is, but the original HSPH press release is at [10] and the paper which Oliver quotes from is at [11]. It seems that Oliver's concerns about dosages are addressed on the lower first column of page 2. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Wired goes in to detail on the dosage controversy regarding the Harvard study. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The issue is not (merely) dosage but that they failed to replicate the symptoms of CCD. There is no controversy in the finding that pesticides at high enough concentrations can kill bees but when the pattern of loss does not match the pattern of CCD, you can not credibly say that you have identified a cause of CCD. It would like saying that mustard gas, a yellow chemical that kills by scarring the lungs, causes the black death despite the absence of black pustules or other defining characteristics of the disease. Rossami (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Which particular symptoms did they fail to replicate? 71.215.74.243 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A 2012 Purdue University article ([12]) found high concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam in the waste talc that is exhausted from farm machinery during planting of corn and soybeans. They also found these insecticides in dead and dying bees.SylviaStanley (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That study used spectroscopy to identify other previously unknown routes of exposure, too, which the authors claim increase the expected field dosages. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted this good-faith edit by Rossami for two reasons.

  1. This discussion on talk seems far from conclusive and I don't see any evidence of the authors or the publishers withdrawing the paper or its findings here.
  2. If there are well-sourced and peer-reviewed criticisms of the paper and its methodology available (not a comment on a message board, no matter who claims to have made it!), then the correct Wikipedia thing to do is to extend the coverage by summarising the valid criticisms (and the responses to the criticisms, and so on) in the article, not deleting all references to the research as if we were ashamed of it.

In short, if there are criticisms to be made of the study, don't make them here in your own voice, just quote the relevant sentences from the study where the criticisms are published. Then the editors involved here will be able to formulate the best form of words based on the critical studies to go in the article. That way we cover all non-WP:FRINGE aspects, with WP:DUE weight, while avoiding WP:OR. --Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mis-applying the criteria. At this point, the Harvard study is still in pre-release. (It is an example of the problem becoming known as "science by press release", but that's a separate rant.) There are no published criticisms of it yet because it's too early in the cycle. Having not yet had the opportunity for published rebuttal and contradicting the prior understanding, then the Harvard study is, at present, the fringe position. It is premature to include it in an encyclopedia at this time. If the publication is substantiated, then it can be included. Shoving it into the article without verification, however, is an example of cherry-picking your references.
By the way, to substantiate the position that the Harvard study is a contradiction of prior research, you only have to look to Ecotoxicology (2012) 21:973-992 which summarizes "15 years of research on the hazards of neonicotinoids to bees including honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees" and which concludes based on the research that "Many lethal and sublethal effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees have been described in laboratory studies, however, no effects were observed in field studies with field-realistic dosages."
If you can get access to a pre-published copy of the Harvard study, you can also look at the plain language of their description of the colony deaths ("Dead hives were remarkably empty except for stores of food and some pollen left on the frames.") to see that it does not match the symptoms of CCD (presence of capped brood and a queen). The Harvard study is, itself, the position being granted undue weight by being included here. Rossami (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You can see my point, though, that that sounds like you saying that you personally know better than Alex Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology in the Department of Environmental Health, the Harvard School of Public Health, the other authors and the peer reviewers of this paper, and that we should believe you over them. You and a guy on a message board who claims to be Randy Oliver, who may or may not have a conflict of interest over this. The Harvard paper only gets one sentence in the article, and it is attributed, and it is dated (in the future). It's not as if we changed the whole article because of it. --Nigelj (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Do we know whether the paper has survived peer review, if it is only in pre-release? If it has not survived peer review yet, then there is no grounds for including it, especially in the lead. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

History of decline in number of feral bees

I am puzzled that the reference for the decline from 1972 to 2006 is an article from 1994. From the text: From 1972 to 2006, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of feral honey bees in the U.S. (now almost nonexistent)[1] Stephendcole (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence has been in the article in one form or another since its earliest versions. The core of the sentence (that feral honeybee populations crashed starting somewhere in the 1970s) is easily defensible and can be sourced from multiple references. The current cite was added by an anon editor in Sep 2007. That cite also backs up the core meaning of the sentence but you are correct that it can not speak to trends after it was written. It's probably not the best cite for that sentence. Older versions of the article attributed the entire paragraph to the Penn State study. It should probably be reverted to that state. Rossami (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring

Editors Rossami and R. S. Shaw have removed the link to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring from the see also section. This is silly because the book deals with exactly this kind of threatening situations.

Their reasoning for doing so is not very assuring, "Silent Spring, a book published in 1962, has nothing to do with CCD, a syndrome not identified until 2006." and "Electricity related to Charge Coupled Devices, not Colony Collapse Disorder."

Please assist me in having the link returned to the article. Palosirkka (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary "Electricity related to Charge Coupled Devices, not Colony Collapse Disorder" was in response to the edit summary of the edit (by Palosirkka) which was being reverted, which read "electricity, invented in 1600s has nothing to do with computers, invented in 1940s..." and seemed at least as appropriate. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Which was in response to Rossumi's "Silent Spring, a book published in 1962, has nothing to do with CCD, a syndrome not identified until 2006.". Didn't such a strange summary make you investigate why it was made? The book was very prescient, agreed but that's only the more reason to include it. Palosirkka (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps they do not understand the content and impact of the book. I would agree that it would be appropriate to include in the see also section. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I read that book decades ago. I am intimately familiar with its themes, arguments and weaknesses. It was a specific diatribe against DDT, arguing that it was adversely affecting the entire ecosystem (particularly but not exclusively, birds). And while there remain serious arguments about whether the net benefits of DDT (malaria suppression, primarily) outweighed the environmental costs, there was no controversy at the time (or since) that DDT causes adverse effects in the species she discussed.
CCD, on the other hand, is a syndrome that is still not well understood and has no confirmed cause. Some people think that there is a causal relationship with pesticides but the studies suggesting it have been challenged for sloppy methodology, poor or absent controls, insignificant sample size and generally sloppy science (as already noted in the article and here on Talk). There is no scientific consensus that pesticides are the cause of CCD, much less any consensus that one pesticide can be implicated. Note, too, that many of the accusations of pesticide causation fail on epidemiological grounds - bees with no known exposure to the pesticides in question have (reportedly) suffered CCD and bees with high exposure to the pesticides in question are apparently CCD-free.
I am not saying that pesticides have been exonerated from the CCD question. Far from it. A great deal of research remains to be done. Some very interesting findings are coming out about sub-lethal effects of certain pesticide combinations. (Most interesting to me have been two recent reports that 1) a fungicide in combination with the miticides commonly used by beekeepers to control varroa may be responsible and alternatively 2) that perhaps it is the surfactants or other "inert" components of the agricultural spray that are contributing.) But there's also the phorid fly hypothesis and a number of others.
Regardless of the cause, however, Carson's book has nothing to do with it. It's not even a reasonable analogy. I see no connection at all to this article. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Silent Spring is a very important book; it helped the environmental movement coalesce. The problem is that it has no direct relevance to this particular article. It was not about colony collapse disorder, nor the diseases of bees, nor even bees (although they are mentioned a few times). It talked about the destruction of parts of the natural world (especially birds) due to pesticides. That is not close to the subject of this article, so it doesn't belong in the See Also section here, as I see it. The article already has many See Also entries, all of which are much more relevant to the subject. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you Mr. Shaw suppose the pesticides end up in the birds? Via the insects, such as pollinators, they eat. Biology 101. Palosirkka (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
No, Carson did not in fact assume that. Much of the contamination was believed to be through direct exposure (the initial spraying) and then through secondary exposure via dust and water. Yes, there is an element of "biological magnification" in the DDT uptake pathways that is based on the food chain but it is based on all the prey animals exposed. Those were largely small mammals, not pollinators. This is why the DDT effects seemed to be seen most sharply in higher predator species such as the bald eagle and not as much in species that consume insects. Regardless, there is no evidence that any pesticide accused in CCD has those secondary effects. Neonicotinoids, in particular, are favored by farmers over the predecessor pesticides in large part because they are very specific in their toxicity to insects and are far less toxic to other phyla. Rossami (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The birds are not the issue here. Palosirkka (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Shaw and Rossami that "Silent Spring" is not relevant to this specific problem. It adds nothing bearing on CCD which is not already in this article. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

note locations without CCD

The current article mainly discusses the US and Europe. it might help to add a note under the heading Scope and distribution discussing places where CCD has not been found. Sources that highlight the lack or presence of CCD might help for South America, Africa, China, India and the Middle East. Zqrrld (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

2-heptanone And CCD

Anyone hear of abnormal 2-heptanone production, reception or a synthetic compound (with similar structures) being the cause of CCD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.104.247 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

New news on the monday before thanksgiving?

I thought there was supposed to be a major publication last week about CCD. I can't find anything new. Does anyone have information about major study being published at the end of this month? (Nov 2012) because I only remember hearing about it, maybe it wasn't a reliable source, but I'm 99% sure it was affiliated with major american university. 71.52.196.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Studies continue to show very high levels of pathogens in CCD-affected samples and lower pathogen levels in non-affected samples, consistent with the empirical observation that healthy honey bee colonies normally fend off pathogens.

This is an interesting point as I've heard many, many bee keepers talking about encouraging colonies that are 'nice' bees, in that they don't sting so often. If they don't sting humans so often, perhaps they also don't defend against parasites so well? Quite a few of the bee keepers endorsing this philosophy do seem to be parasites themselves, in that they seem to treat the bees largely as an additional income.

That said, I had four hives, two that were packed with tens of thousands that barely had any interest in me being around and another two that had barely any bees present but, those that were there, would readily sting (poor hive conditions and tending prior to my keeping, the original keeper had died and the hives were in a bad state). The latter two had similar to exceeding mite problems. All four hives collapsed, entirely, within the space of a month (i.e. they were empty) despite being significantly recovering or growing in potential prior to this. I was originally suspicious of the mite strips, as these seemed to be only possible common element. Perhaps consider pulling the strips and routinely spraying them with nectar to encourage self grooming as opposed to strip based knock down? But the more full and busy hives went first, suggesting a possible link between foraging capacity and the collapse; e.g. they may be bringing back more of the insecticides than the hives I had to spoon feed syrup. Although, population density may also have a factor to play.

This needs addressing and fixing quickly. The decline is immense. And precisely during a period in which we are trying to encourage people to eat more fruit. I would suggest keepers with happy hives consider not doing too much relocating, or that they look out for grass based crops within flight range of the hive. Look after them! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.236.118 (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Update

I came across this notable bee person when I was looking into for info on another article. Link He mentioned CCD causes. "For the past 15 years, Ingram said he has been conducting research on the effects of Round-Up on honeybees. He feels he had accumulated the necessary data to document the fact that Round-Up was not only the cause of his bees dying, but also possibly the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)." (my bold) They seized all of his bees soon after and he lost 15 years of research. Is that the Monsanto link you were wondering about in the above section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Right now it seems much more likely that insecticides are involved rather than herbicides. You will need some peer reviewed studies for this in order to put it in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Reviewed studies? Does that mean we should remove all material in the article that isn't sourced to a reviewed study?--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly we cannot include one beekeepers idea about a completely different cause of CCD when no scientific study has ever been done, let alone a peer reviewed study. And if the present article contains that sort of material, yes it should be removed. Is there some information in the article that you believe is not appropriate? Gandydancer (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You may wish to Google the professor. He isn't merely 'one beekeeper'. He has 15+ years of research on glyphosate and Roundup (herbicide). He is notable enough for his own article here which is more than can be said of those that create 'peer reviewed' studies that are funded by corporations and governments. Peer reviewed may be acceptable to many but 'independent' are probably far more reliable. You may wish to read about Niède Guidon and see how her independent studies are treated by her peers. Peers can be viewed as just a bunch of yes-men sheep that follow the ideals of whoever pays them. Scientists can lie and when they do it is probably just to get funding.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your statement is directly contradicted by wikipedia policy. See WP:SOURCES: Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. The editorial you gave is certainly not a reliable source. A secondary source covering some of the professor's independent writing might be considered reliable. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be the case if it were claimed to be the sole cause. Not to list it as a possible cause. Here is another scientist claiming it as a possibility. The site that hosts the .pdf may seem non-RS but the paper seems valid. See table 1. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

An unpublished manuscript is not a reliable source. An editorial is not a reliable source. This policy is generalized in WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources are those that have a ... lack meaningful editorial oversight... Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves... TippyGoomba (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, it would be good for you to do some reading at the reliable sources page. We are not suggesting that there is not merit to your sites, only that they are not acceptable for the article. Gandydancer (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The source it not the commentary article though. It is Professor Ingram stating it in the video. Since he is well respected in the bee field there should be no reason why we can't say that it is him claiming it as a possible cause. Dr. Huber makes the same claim in his report. I can see why we need ironclad sources to state that it is definitely the cause but two respected scientists claiming it as a possible cause is far different.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already quoted you policy which indicates we can't do what you're suggesting. If it's important and he's a competent scientist, i'm sure he'll publish it in the peer-reviewed scholarship. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy only recommends strong sources to claim a scientific fact. Two experts claiming possibly causes is far different than scientific fact. If they do get around to peer reviewed studies then we either state it as the cause or dismiss it as the cause.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we'd require secondary sources to establish notability. What's your suggested edit and sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, please have a look at the posts, esp. crash2usef's post, re Terry in this bee keeping forum. This is the reason that WP needs to keep a strong policy regarding using only good sourcing. [13] Gandydancer (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You want peer reviewed sources for two professional scientific opinions and then you follow anonymous blog opinions?--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(Arriving from the link in the ANI discussion.) There is a difference between linking something for illustrative purposes on a talk page, and proposing a source for inclusion in an article. Arc de Ciel (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
For the moment, I want you to suggest an edit with sources. Different statements require different sources. It's not clear to me what we're discussing anymore. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Since none of the causes have been proven yet then we can't truly source any of them by the 'peer reviewed' source ideal. There is one peer reviewed study but I think it was shot down in the next sentence. We could divide it into sections. Discounted causes, popular causes needing further study, and other causes suspected. I don't know why the EMR theory is even included as I think that was shot down years ago as a cause for anything. Most transmitted power is AC so the two EMR fields cancel evenly. In DC transmission the range is only a few inches before the Earth's field overpowers it. DC doesn't have the 60Hz 'induction crash' that AC does so the EMR is far weaker. I think it is laughable that so many try to blame EMR for every woe that befalls the planet. Since the other choice is to go back to living in caves with no electricity then the EMR theories will remain harmless. This is the same as the Roundup claim. Until Roundup is proven wrong or right then our readers should see it alongside of EMR, discounted peer reviews, and any other claims that are sourced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realise we were cherry picking a single unpublished positive result out of a larger review. I'll start a new section about it. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that's done. I don't know what to make of the rest of what you said. You've suddenly brought up EMR and now I'm confused. I'll take you to be no longer proposing an edit. Please suggest one, if I'm mistaken. I've given you an example of how to propose an edit in the new section below. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

GMO cherry picking

The GMO section uses (what looks to be) a systematic review (here) which contains a section on honeybees (section 2.12). It is used to support the following sentence (among others):

A connection between Bt maize and CCD was raised in experiments conducted in Germany that were described on the Internet but never published in a scientific journal.

The source cites several other studies which find no connection and concludes:

Thus there are no data in the scientific lit- erature supporting direct or indirect damage to bees caused by currently approved GE crops en- gineered to make Bt proteins.

Given the single positive result is unpublished, given there are several other (published) studies which find no connection, and given the source itself concludes there is no connection, I propose the mention of the negative result be removed per WP:WEIGHT. Specifically, the entire first paragraph shown here should be dropped. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

'Currently approved GE crops' seems weasely. It can infer that there may be un-approved crops out there that may be the cause or a study was never done on un-approved crops.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If there is no valid correlation then just remove the whole section. It could be added to a new section of discounted causes in one sentence. The EMR section could be dealt with in the same way. It just repeats most of the same falsehoods as the EMR controversy article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The second para is based on a meta-analysis and is perfectly fine. If you refuse to go by the WP standards this is not the place for you and you are wasting our time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the GMO section or the EMR one? Either way they both seem to have too much weight here. The same material is repeated in other articles so that just makes this one a coatrack of controversies that belong elsewhere. Main study X made this claim but was later discounted by main proof Y. We could cut both sections down to two sentences each.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tippy, about the EMR section, I actually have thought of removing it many times, but I end up reading it again and leaving it alone because these ideas get tossed around in the blogs and it seemed reasonable to discuss the issue here. What do you think? Canoe, I'll reply to you in a sec. Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, until you take the time to read the WP info re sourcing you are wasting our time. Please read the meta-analysis info. In short it looks at all the literature it can find and comes to a decision as to whether the individual studies seem to show a trend either way. Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. It just seems this article is bloated with fluff that has little to do with CCD. That huge section on EMR just repeats controversy from the EMR articles. Readers would just waste time reading through it all to discover that there is no evidence that it is the cause. If we split it into sections as I said before then that may work. Probable causes, possible causes, and de-bunked causes; then the readers would know which section they would find the best material in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Which ones would you put under "probable" and which under "possible"? Gandydancer (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That would depend on the sources. If none say probable then we may end up with possible, theoretical, and de-bunked.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
We could have three sections: Most likely, Least likely, and Not likely. Any three semantic levels would sort them so readers could read the best first and ignore the last if they wish. EMR I would put in a nameless section below categories but that is COI and the markup won't work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I doubt there exist sources for such a distinction but I'm prepared to be surprised. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposals to ban neonicotinoids in US

Earthjustice and other environmental groups are calling for a ban on neonicotinoids, and Kentucky has a state bill to the same effect in process. I think the article should be updated to reflect these initiatives, and I'm prepared to do these edits, but would like to hear from the community. I would prefer not to do a lot of hard work and research to find my work deleted on POV grounds.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Source? TippyGoomba (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, here goes: Pesticides are not what the bees need and Beekeepers sue EPA and Okay, maybe yahoo is more reliably neutral. I believe NBC ran an opposing view that needs to be represented, but I can't find the source now.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Wait, found it: NBC disagrees--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
These look good. Thanks for the current information. I was not even familiar with Sulfoxaflor--that info should go at its article as well. Gandydancer (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The first one is a blog, the second one is "earthjustice.org", which I'd guess isn't reliable for this. The yahoo link appears to be an AP article. I'd stick with the AP article and/or NBC article. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Properly used, blogs can sometimes be used. This information, for instance should be OK:
The Save America's Pollinators Act of 2013 (H.R. 2692), has recently been introduced by Representatives John Conyers (D, MI) and Earl Blumenauer (D, OR), and co-sponsored by Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D, CA) and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D, NH)
That info may be available at the Rep's websites as well. As for the Green site, again, OK when properly used. Gandydancer (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I do realize that Kentucky.com looks like a blog, but it is the web version of the Lexington Herald, Kentucky's newspaper of record. The same commentary appeared in the editorial section of the newspaper, but I thought the on-line version would be more helpful for Wikipedia. Before deleting anything from Kentucky.com, would fellow editors please give me a chance to source the information to the print paper by communicating with me at my talk page? Thank you.--Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Blog is short hand for "no editorial standards". I'm sure Kentucky.com has editorial standards in some places. The article you linked is an op-ed, meaning no editorial standards, meaning the source can't be used for factual statements, only to represent the opinions of the author. The author in this case is some random undergrad, not a scientist. And thus the source is discarded completely. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

EMR section

I was asked in the GMO section above what I think of the EMR section. I believe this section should exist but I think there are problems with it's current form. The section is littered with primary studies which should likely all be removed. Hopefully there are some meta analysis in there to hold the section together, otherwise we'll have to go find some. As I looked over them, I felt there's nothing wrong with the sources in and of themselves, we just can't use primary studies like that. There are a few news articles as well, I don't have a strong feeling about keeping them but I don't see a reason to remove them either. Thoughts? TippyGoomba (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am very COI when it comes to EMR so my input should be taken as that. I believe it has no effects on biomatter more than a short distance from the conductors. Homing pigeons may be an exception and other life with iron EMR sensors. I do believe it should exist here because it has been reported as a possible or theoretical cause. The reports may have been caused by bad(?) science but since there were reports then our readers should expect to find EMR here. 1-3 sentences should be fine. X media reported that Mr. Y claimed this. That cause was discounted because of Z results.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it was not fun but I read them all. The final para is a review and should stay. I'm mixed in my feelings on the others. Tippy, in a case like this, with so little research, single studies can be used if used properly. For instance, a single study that found that EMR was responsible for CCD would not be acceptable because it goes against a vast number of studies that do not include that possibility. However, in this case the review did find that EMR may be related to recent bee die offs (to my great surprise--I really learned something!) and it may, if used properly, be used. For instance the wording would be something like, "In 2012 a study conducted by...", because it takes a few years for reviews to keep up with single studies. Any way, I did review the single studies and found them to be only remotely connected or used improperly. The one that resulted in the news splash that includes news reports, I have mixed feeling on, but tend to believe that we should keep it. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
We could trim it leaving behind the key isolated studies. If it still looks too large or we're unsure about the studies, we can ask at WP:RSNB how we should represent research topics as young as this. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
We could just list them if it is still to large. "No studies have consensus results yet. Three studies are inconclusive. One study was negative."
Tippy, I did a "trial delete" of two paras. Let me know what you think. If you agree, next we have the one with the news story to decide on. Gandydancer (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That's much nicer. It also removes some potential WP:OR I failed to mention earlier. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Very good work. I am still of the opinion that the section is too large. As I have stated before I have a strong POV on this issue so I will let others decide if it needs further work. The phrase 'lay media' seems awkward to me in the first sentence as well. Others ay consider re-wording that whole sentence to something like "...unfounded(?) internet claims made by blogs(?) that were later found to be...." This could show readers that if they wish to read on then they should expect no substantial claims. --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be describing the links to Bayer and Monsanto and similar companies who controls so much of pesticides and GMO seeds? It seems odd to leave out the names of the companies behind this problem. Also I believe there is a ban on use of these pesticides from Bayer at least in a number of countries in Europe? -- Jcldude (talk · contribs) 07:32, 31 May 2013‎ (UTC)

You are assuming that pesticides have been determined to be the cause. That is not the case. If someone wants to learn who produces any of the pesticides which have been suggested as possible causes, then they can follow the links to the articles on those pesticides. See also the section Colony collapse disorder#Neonicotinoids banned by European Union.
GMO has no connection whatever to this issue. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've learned by now, Wikipedia is not free anymore, as far as I've read, all the articles who talk about things that matter, whatever lacks "critics" section or excludes all the aspects of a problem. If GMO is not the problem then what? :) Oil has been in the world for more then 150 years and no harm to bees, but guess what, GMO has been around for ~15 years and guess what we see effect of this. But wait, why would Wikipedia allow to publicize such information if it harms big corps? :) Really think about it. Facts are stright and we know the companies who produces GMO's. --87.246.140.74 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The update section below has a link to a professor that believes Glyphosate may be responsible. We presently have issues with a group of editors that do seem to edit in favor of the corporate spin. Hopefully that will change.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


Lets just say things like this so hopefully people will believe them: "GMO has no connection whatever to this issue." Can you provide numerous examples supporting this purported statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.82.35 (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person who asserts that there is an exception to the general rule. In this case, the general rule is that GMO are no more likely to be harmful than "natural" organisms. In fact, I dare you to cite (from a reliable source) even one example of GMO ever causing harm to anyone (beyond what the natural organism does). JRSpriggs (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Bees wearing sensors

This report might be useful to editors of this Wikipedia article.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Watanabe, M. (1994). "Pollination worries rise as honey bees decline". Science. 265 (5176): 1170. doi:10.1126/science.265.5176.1170. PMID 17787573.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder/Archive_10&oldid=1144176543"