Dr. Gressel is interesting in his own right, a professor emeritus of plant sciences at Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, and author of ” Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiversity”. I can’t wait to find a copy and let you know what he has to say. A preview is available at Google Books. He argues that we need to use biotechnology in order to break the glass ceiling – alluding to the decline in crop yield improvement over the past few years. According to the reviews, he also addresses problems with biotech and ways to overcome them.

At its heart, organic ag is based on biology – understanding biological processes in order to coax food out of the soil. Conventional ag has forgotten things, such as how soil-bacteria interactions can affect soil fertility, how polyculture (or at least rotation) can help prevent disease, or how natural predators can be used to keep pests away. In short, conventional ag is chemistry while organic is biology.

Even though the technology is new, biotech is biology, not chemistry. This is eloquently described by Raoul Adamchak in Tomorrow’s Table. For example, giving plants the means to protect themselves from disease with technologies like RNAi is very different from spraying potentially toxic chemicals, and doing so is fundamentally true to the idea behind organic farming.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many people who are listening. For example, when I brought this up in a Sustainable Agriculture class at Iowa State, the response was:

Organic agriculture is defined by law (unlike other forms of agriculture) and as such, the rules prescribe that transgenic forms cannot be used in organic agriculture.

The rules about what is and is not organic may be defined by law, but they aren’t defined by science. Some of the additives allowed by the organic rules are quite dangerous and don’t follow from the idea of biologically concious agriculture – such as the use of sulfur and copper (see p133-137 of the Google Books preview of The Truth About Organic Gardening).

The line drawn to exclude biotechnology is arbitrary. Included are techniques like chemical and radioactive mutagenesis, forced hybridization across species, grafting to form physically chimeric plants. Excluded are techniques like cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology. There is one distinction I can see: techniques allowed in organic farming have been in use for decades and can generally be done with minimal equipment while techniques excluded from organic farming are new, patentable, require expensive equipment and trained technicians.

It has been suggested that the organic movement (specifically the anti-GM movement) is actually a reflection of anti-capitalism and in some cases anti-technology sentiment. The regulations support this theory, but I think at least some of that can be left in the past. I hope we can all look forward to redefining organic to stay true to its original meaning of biologically based agriculture. Without an integrated farming strategy – orgenic farming – I’m afraid we won’t have much left to eat.

Jonathan Gressel (2009). Orgenic Food Nature Genetics, 41 (2), 137-137 DOI: 10.1038/ng0209-137

The first few chapters provide information: 1 explanation of why bees are so important to agriculture, 2 facinating descriptions of bee life, bee biology, and beekeeping in general, and 3 the first incidences of CCD, including first hand descriptions from beekeepers.

Chapter 4, Whodunit, is where the story starts to get really interesting. Jacobsen carefully explains the dead ends of the investigation (call phones, Bt crops, the rapture, etc) and tells us why none of the various viruses, bacteria, and parasites that afflict bees are likely culprits.

The discussion of Bt crops is surprisingly lucid (if not a tad overdrawn) and contains more than a little foreshadowing for the next chapter: “Why spray crops with a pesticide that washes into the soil and groundwater when you can simply have the plants manufacture it for themselves? Organic farmers have used Bt for years as a natural insecticide. So I can understand Monsanto’s thinking. Then again, I can understand Dr. Frankenstein’s belief that it might be useful to reanimate the dead; it’s in the practice that things get messy.” Jacobsen points out that “lots of CCD cases have been reported in states  [and countries] with no GM crops” and that USDA studies have shown Bt pollen to be completely safe.

Chapter 5, Slow Poison, brings us to a hypothesis that pesticides are the problem, reducing the bees’ ability to defend themselves against disease. Individual pesticides are tested singly for lethality and applied at rates below lethal levels, but they aren’t tested in the combinations that bees experience in the fields. They also aren’t tested long term at non-lethal levels. Low levels of various pesticides, including neonicotinoids (which are a relatively safe synthetic version of nicotine, an organic pesticide) cause nervous system problems in bees. France’s answer has been to ban certain pesticides, but their bees continue to die while bees exposed to the same pesticide (Gaucho) in Argentina are doing just fine.

So, what do we do? In later chapters, Jacobsen offers a few solutions, including a huge switch in farming practices and importing Russian bees, but I’m not satisfied. From bees to babies, it seems obvious that we need to reduce dependance on pesticides in farming. The problem is, we can’t afford it. There is a reason why organic produce costs more. We must find gentle ways to keep yields high.

To me, Jacobsen’s paragraphs on Bt crops and on pesticides combine to a somewhat obvious potential solution – genetic engineering. One of the nice things about GE is that you can target where in the plant a compound (such as Bt or nicotine) is produced. Using the right promoter, we can express a compound in just the leaves or just the roots, whatever part needs to be protected from pests. While some compounds will be transported around the plant, we can realistically produce a GE plant that has very little of the compound in the pollen. With the pesticide safely locked away in the plant parts that need it, the bees can come and go, harvesting pollen without being affected. Instead of demanding a ban on GE, we should demand more intelligent use of the technology.

Of course, genetic engineering alone won’t solve CCD, but neither will banning pesticides. We need a completely fresh look at agriculture. We need a system that rewards farmers for good practices to improve the situation for bees and for the rest of us. For example, if a farmer rotates crops and uses Bt crops properly to reduce insecticide use, allows some weeds to grow to reduce herbicides use, plants borders and hedgerows of wildflowers, uses local bee hives instead of shipping them in, etc – the food can’t be labeled “organic” even though a huge difference has been made for local ecosystems, for the bees, and for the health of the consumer. The farmer won’t be compensated for these efforts which are more time consuming than 100% conventional farming. Without compensation, why bother? It’s far easier to rely on chemicals, and we all need to make a living.

Image of a bee heading toward an almond blossom by pho-tog on flickr, book cover from Jacobsen’s website.

Photo by Yvan leduc via Wikipedia.

There is so much information out there on Colony Collapse Disorder. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone summarized it in one place? Kyle Bailey, undergraduate in biology at Iowa State, has done just that. The following, posted with permission, is an up-to-date review of CCD research. It includes information from a variety of sources, from fact sheets to peer-reviewed journal articles.

Introduction

Honeybees (apis mellifera) are the primary pollinator available to agriculturalists in the United States. This makes them a critical part of US agriculture.  Crops such as “almonds (82% of the world’s supply and 100% dependent on interstate pollinators); apples; cherries; blueberries; broccoli; carrots; cranberries; cucurbits like cucumber, melons, squash, pumpkins, and gourds” (Stankus 2008) are heavily reliant on honey bees for pollination.  Traveling hives provided by commercial apiary services pollinates many of these crops.

A current epidemic, called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), affecting honeybee hives throughout the US threatens the apiarist industry.  In the US during 2006-2007 29% of beekeepers reported some loss to CCD with some losing up to 75% of their stock (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al).  CCD is characterized as a mysterious loss of worker bees in the hive.  There are no corpses to be found as the bees apparently wander far from the hive to die.  The hive generally has sufficient food stores to maintain the population.  The hives also generally still have undeveloped brood stock.  The new brood (as well as the queen) is of course doomed without any adult workers present to care for them and they soon die.  Because the bees travel far from the hive there are no bodies to necropsy and attempt to determine a cause (Stankus 2008).

This paper will explore the US economic and agricultural impacts of pollinator loss, and recent research into the causes of and potential solutions to CCD.

US Economic and Agricultural Impacts

The monoculture nature of agriculture tends to produce large numbers of flowers that all need pollinating simultaneously. A lack of honeybee colonies available to ship and set up for pollinating the variety of crops throughout the US will have a major impact on production.  Dr. Caird Rexroad, an associate administrator of agricultural research for the United States Department of Agriculture, in testimony before the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee states:

“CCD poses a problem for many segments of the agricultural community, particularly the pollination industry and many growers that depend on pollinating services.  In total, bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion in added crop value, particularly for specialty crops such as almonds and other tree nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables.  The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, a need that is projected to grow significantly by 2010.  Due to CCD, the bee industry is facing great difficulty meeting the demand of almond producers.  If researchers are unable to solve the problem and beekeepers are unable to meet demands for this and other crops, agriculture will be significantly impacted.” (2007).

Recent Research on CCD

CCD is far from explained.  There is apparently no single explanatory factor.  There is strong evidence, however, that it is biologically transmitted (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et.al.). It would appear to be a combination of factors.  Most of them well known and others new, emerging, or as yet unknown.  CCD is however strongly associated with hives that have been under stress from any of a number of known stressors (Stankus 2008).  These include mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and insecticides.  The various fungi, and bacteria are not thought to be major contributors to CCD directly.  A major indicator for CCD is, however, hive stress and any infection or infestation could contribute.

There are two mites that are of significant impact to A. mellifera.  They are Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi. A. woodi is a very small mite that lives in the tracheal tubes of the adult worker honeybee (http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html).  It is also associated with additional bacterial infections (Stankus 2008).  V. destructor is by far the more important mite and is more strongly associated with CCD.  V. destructor is a mite that primarily infects the brood while it is still capped off in the comb.  When out of the comb such as when the colony is over wintering and there is no brood left the mite infests the adult worker bee piercing the exoskeleton on the back and sucking hemolymph (Bowen-Walker, Martin, and Gunn 1996). V. destructor is also associated with additional infections, this time viral. Infestation by V. destructor affects bee size, weight, population, timeliness of emergence, lifespan and even the ability of bees to learn (Stankus 2008).

Viruses affecting honeybees are more diverse.  There are at least 15 serious strains.  Strongly associated with Varroa mite infestation is deformed wing virus (DWV).  DWV is usually spread by the mites to developing larvae who develop small non-functional wings.  The resulting adult can crawl but not fly.  It has also been shown that the learning ability of bees may be affected (Stankus 2008).

A 2007 study looked at samples from 51 separate colonies, all of them mobile. In all 25 hives suffering from CCD they found Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) and they found the virus in only one healthy hive.  This strongly correlates IAPV with CCD (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et al.).  The causal relationship of IAPV to CCD is currently under study (Cox-Foster 2008).  Vertical transmission from Queen to offspring has also been shown for a variety of viruses (Chen, Pettis, Collins et al. 2005).

The most common protozoans found in honeybees are cryptosporidian called Nosema apis and a close cousin Nosema ceranae. N. ceranae is a more serious disease and is jumping the species barrier from Asian bees (Apis ceranae) to European bees (Apis mellifera). N. ceranae reduces hive survivability to one in six (Martin-Hernandez, Meana, Prieto, et al. 2007).  Given the recent emergence of N. ceranae and the uncanny similarity in hive survival rates, the prospect of finding a link to CCD seems promising (Stankus 2008).

Certain pesticides in wide use in the US have also been suggested to be players.  Specifically a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids.  The most widely used of these in the US is imidacloprid.  It is used as a seed coat and can show up in plant tissues such as pollen and nectar in low doses.  It is known to be toxic to bees, but when used in this way the bees receive a sub-lethal dose. One of the principal effects of imidacloprid on honeybees is a loss of learning ability (Decourtye, Lacassie, and Pham-Delegue 2003).  Learning ability in bees is considered critical for the hive to continue thriving (Stankus 2008).  The use of neonicotinoid pesticides varies widely by region, but the occurrence of CCD is fairly uniform. The manufacturer of imidacloprid has released a press release strongly denying its product plays any part in CCD and suggesting studies that show this to be true (Bayer CropScience, 2008).

Dr. Cox-Foster, one of the leading researchers in CCD also suggests the unnatural diet bees are subjected to may be a factor.  One day bees can be in a field with nothing but almonds, another day nothing but watermelon, and in between fed an artificial sugar syrup.  This is not the diet bees evolved with and as such may be a stressor.  She also mentioned the practice of frequent hive splitting.  This produces new hives more often than bees would choose to do so on their own.  The last possible factor mentioned is the decrease in genetic diversity.  Beekeepers who have some Africanized bees have not suffered from CCD (Bodnar 2008).

Possible Solutions

There is a study looking at how Africanized bees seem to be resistant to many of the diseases currently stressing European bees (Frazier Tumlinson, Tomasko 2008).  One possibility is to breed resistance into our bees.

There is also the possibility of moving away from our dependence on a single species to do all of our pollinating.  Unfortunately not many other bees are social so keeping them in very large numbers is difficult.  The solitary bees tend to wander away when they perceive their population is too high. One study currently under way has as one of its main goals to “Improve management of bumble bee pollinators through research aimed at identifying factors believed to affect worker pollen foraging and pollination efficiency.” (Delaplane Visscher,Eitzer 2008).  In some areas native pollinators may be able to pick up the slack and provide sufficient pollination (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al. 2007).

Depending on the findings of some current studies, we may simply find that a few changes in our managements of bees could make all the difference.  The careful use of novel miticides, maintaining more diverse food sources such as wild flowers in proximity to the crops we want pollinated, and maintaining a larger portion of the bee population as stationary hives instead of mobile operations that move state to state would all seem to be prudent, easy, and inexpensive first steps to staving off CCD.

Conclusion

CCD is obviously an important disease.  It is currently a major area of study and our government through the USDA is pouring millions of dollars into research projects all over the country.  At this point we are just beginning to understand the possible mitigating factors to CCD and how they may interplay with each other.  The coming few years will likely be hard ones on the apiary and agricultural industries.  Hopefully, solutions will be swift in coming and cheap in implementing.

Works Cited

Bee safety and Colony Collapse Disorder. (2008) Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.press.bayercropscience.com

Bodnar, A. Colony Collapse Disorder (2008) Retrieved November 18, 2008 From http://www.geneticmaize.com/2008/06/colony-collapse-disorder/

Chen, Y. P., Pettis, J. S., Collins, A., Feldlaufer, M. F. (2006). Prevalence and Transmission of Honeybee Viruses. [Electronic version] Applied And Environmental Microbiology,72, 606-611.

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) Colony Collapse Disorder – Determination Of Role Of Pathogens In Unique-Colony Losses Of Honey Bees And Funding Of Workshop On Ccd Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=15893&format=WEBLINK

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) A New Collaboration To Understand African Bee Biology, Ecology, And Management As A Key To Sustaining Honey Bee Health In The U.S. [Electronic version] Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=23624&format=WEBLINK

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AFFECTING HEALTH OF MANAGED BEES [Electronic version] Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=8439&format=WEBLINK

Cox-Foster, D.L.,Conlan, S., Holmes, E.C., Palacios, G., Evans, J.D., Moran N.A. (2008). A Metagenomic Survey of Microbes in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder. [Electronic version] Science 318, 283-287

Decourtye, A., Lacassie, E., Pham-Dele`gue M. (2003) Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. [Electronic version] Pest Management Science 59, 269-278

Martı´n-Herna´ndez, R., Meana, A., Prieto, L.,  Salvador, A. M., Garrido-Bailo´n, E., Higes M. (2007). Outcome of Colonization of Apis mellifera by Nosema ceranae. [Electronic version] 73(20), 6331-6338.

P. L. BOWEN-WALKER, S. J. MARTIN, A. GUNN (1996). Preferential distribution of the parasitic mite, Varroa jacobsoni Oud. on overwintering honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) workers and changes in the level of parasitism.[Electonic version]  Parasitology, 114, 151-157

Stankus, T. (2008).  A Review and Bibliography of the Literature of Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Poorly Understood Epidemic that Clearly Threatens the Successful Pollination of Billions of Dollars of Crops in America. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information. [Electronic version] 9(2), 115-143.

Subcommittee On Horticulture And Organic Agriculture Of The Committee On Agriculture House Of Representatives (1997) Review Colony Collapse Disorder In Honey Bee Colonies Across The United States (36-465 PDF) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

“Tracheal Mites” Tarsonemidae. (n.d.) Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html

Winfree, R., Williams, N., Dushoff, J., Kremen, C. (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. [Electronic version] Ecology, 10, 1105-1113

Ironically, many people condemn corn ethanol as wasteful and environmentally damaging but continue to consume animal products that account for a far higher percentage of the US grain crop – but that’s another story.
So, what are we to do? The planet would breathe a metaphorical (metaphysical?) sigh of relief if each person just ate lower on the food chain a few meals per week (see Nathan’s pictorial presentation Calories in Context). We’ve been told to reduce meat consumption for our health and for the planet, but it seems like no one is listening. Nathan’s response to the environmental degradation associated with animal protein production is to use LCAs to find which types of animal agriculture provide the most return on investment. At his seminar at Iowa State, I asked how his results can be used to influence consumer habits. We talked about possible taxes based on environmental impact so that food prices reflect the actual price to the environment, but we’ll leave that to the economists.
Nathan, along with Peter Tyedmers, wrote about LCAs in Biophysical accounting in aquaculture: insights from current practice and the need for methodological development, which was part of the FAO Fisheries document Comparative assessment of the environmental costs of aquaculture and other food production sectors. One of the most striking tables in the paper was a ranking of foods “by ratio of edible protein energy output to industrial energy inputs” on page 234. Intensive carp farming is by far the most efficient (when done properly, carp is even better than plants), while cultured shrimp grown in Thailand are by far the worst. Pastured beef is better than feedlot beef (barely), and industrial eggs are a terrible waste of inputs. See the full table at the end of this post.
Industrial energy inputs only tell part of the story, though, because they do not consider any negative outputs like waste or negative effects like spread of disease to wild populations. Ecological impact assessments also do not consider many effects. That’s why we need LCAs. According to the paper, LCAs frequently consider the following Impact Categories:

Nathan and Peter have focused on salmon farming, which can greatly benefit from LCAs. Production of feed is the most energy intensive and environmentally damaging aspect of aquaculture (and all animal agriculture). Replacing conventionally grown plant based feed with organic had a little effect, but replacing animal based feed with plant based has a huge effect. Some might say that we should just eat wild salmon instead, but again, the problem is demand. Wild salmon would be extinct if we tried to supply the current demand with them exclusively.
All of the options are complex, but two lessons of LCAs stand firm – reduce or eliminate synthetic nitrogen fertilizer (which can be done at least partially with genetic engineering), and decrease per capita meat consumption.

Last year, the rice crop in Arkansas yielded a record 160 bushels an acre. This year, experts there say, 150 bushels will be an achievement.

“There’s no doubt about it, we’re not going to have the rice to export,” said Carl Frein of Farmers Marketing Service in Brinkley, Ark. “Poor countries like Haiti, I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

Randy Kron (photo from NY Times) is an Indiana corn and soy farmer who won’t be able to plant this year. The article follows his story of fields that are too wet to plant. He concludes “I don’t know if this is the worst year we’ve ever had, but it’s moving up the list pretty quick.”
A lot of the comments on the post are typical: too many people don’t research or think before typing. One, though, had a different perspective. I really like reading what real farmers think, especially because they tend to be more optimistic and solution oriented than the doom and gloom Malthusians. One commenter who farms less than 80 miles from the farm in the article writes:

First, the use of corn for ethanol has had almost NO impact on rising food costs. Studies by USDA, by Informa Economics, and by others have proven this. Ethanol has impacted overall food cost increases by less than 3%. Secondly, corn-based ethanol is by no means THE answer to energy problems, bit is AN answer. It’s the most (really, only) biofuels alternative that’s practical right now. Cellulosic ethanol is still unproven, and sugarcane ethanol generates huge amounts of essentailly toxic waste. In contrast, 1/3 of the corn used for ethanol actually remains after processing; this is a protein-rich, very palatable livestock feed especially well-suited for poultry and cattle (and which can be used in small amounts for hogs). Secondly, corn ethanol is energy positive. New processes, as well as dramatically increased corn yields, are responsible for this. ON our farm, we last year produced enough corn to make 301,000 gallons of ethanol AND 35,000 bushels of distillers grains while only using 1,500 gallons of petroleum inputs. (Granted, this does not include energy used to distill the ethanol – but the point remains, it’s still a net-positive process. And keep in mind, this is fuel grown and made in the United STates, where 100% of the money stays here, and does not go to support corrupt regimes in Saudi or Nigeria or wherever…)

If you want to find the true sources of rising food prices, look to China, first, where a huge population now has the means and the desire to not starve. Or at least starve less. China’s use of corn, soybeans and other grain crops is by far the largest contributor to rising prices. 1A is India, where the same phenomenon is taking place. Second, energy costs. Third, widespread drought (esp in Australia), which hammered the world wheat supplies over the last few years. The last place to be putting blame is on bioenergy policies or US farm policy; to the contrary, we American farmers are consistently increasing our productivity and exporting more than every before to feed the world.

Thanks to Sue Jarnagin, Prof of Sociology at ISU, for finding the NY Times article.

Dr. Diana Cox Foster of Penn State spoke at Iowa State about her work with CCD. She has been studying bees for 20 years and heads a diverse team of researchers working to solve the mystery. She said that there there are quite a few “theories” that her team disagrees with.

In particular, she said that CCD is not caused by the rapture or the Russians. She puts cell phones and genetically engineered crops in the same category, choosing instead to focus on legitimate leads. She says that there are many reasons why their group is not looking into these as possible causes, but one reason sticks out: some Amish and organic beekeepers whose hives are isolated from genetically engineered crops, many pesticides, and cell phones in the case of the Amish have experienced CCD, while some conventional beekeepers have not.

In other words, there isn’t a common thread connecting colonies that have collapsed.

Despite the fact that scientists like Dr. Cox Foster have spoken on the lack of legitimacy of these theories, people continue to write about them, such as this example from the always creative Global Research. I won’t pick the article apart due to time constraints, but wanted to show the range of views. A lot of mainstream articles have less extreme views, but few if any make an effort to debunk the incorrect theories. Instead, they reinforce them! Karl over at Inoculated Mind has a nice post summarizing some issues with the cell phone and GMO theories that’s over a year old. If only the reporters would research as he did.

There is abundant evidence that the Bt protein Cry1Ab doesn’t affect non-target insects. A meta-analysis from Jan 2008 of 25 independent studies found “that Bt Cry proteins used in genetically modified crops commercialized for control of lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either honey bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings.” A meta-analysis from May 2008 of a public database found no significant effect on type or number of arthropods in Bt and non-Bt crops. They did find, as have many others, that various types of insecticides decreases the type and number of arthropods.

A quick lit search did come up with a June 2008 study that showed decreased learning ability in bees that were force fed syrup containing very high concentrations of Bt that are not found in the field. This data might indicate the need for more research on bee physiology, but doesn’t mean that Bt isn’t safe for bees in the field.

Now that we know what it’s not, I’ll share with you what Dr. Cox Foster thinks are the most likely causes and solutions…

An almond grove via Klausesbees (which incidentally may be the same one that Dr. Foster used in her presentation).

First is simple stress. When they are working on a specific crop, bees don’t have many dining options. Instead of having wildflowers or even another crop such as strawberries under the almond trees, the grove is a virtual pollen desert when the trees aren’t in bloom. Other crops used to be grown with hedgerows separating smaller farms, but these have been all but eliminated as farms are consolidated. This type of agriculture is what led to bees being trucked across the country to keep up with crop flowering.

Bees did not evolve in the conditions of being moved from state to state, feeding on one type of plant one day to something entirely different the next. A related problem could be the sugar and corn syrups that bees are fed before the crops bloom, just because bees haven’t evolved with this as a food source. The stress of the move and of the ever changing food sources might be too much to bear. The solution to this would be to have areas set aside for wildflowers that would both encourage natural bee hives and serve as a food source to local cultivated bee colonies when the local crops are out of season.

Second is a combination of mites, viruses, and other diseases. Dr. Cox Foster and her associates have sequenced DNA samples from bee hives and found a variety of surprising things, including Aspergillis fungus and the parasite Leishmania. Israeli virus (IAPV) correctly predicted collapsed hives more than any other factor. The virus is transmitted by Verroa mites (shown here in a photo from the USDA ARS). When bees are stressed, they are especially susceptible to mites which in turn makes them susceptible to disease. Royal jelly from China, used to feed prospective queen bees, was also found to contain IAPV.

Also contributing to susceptibility is the decrease in genetic diversity among bee hives. One possible solution to the problem is breeding or engineering resistant bees. For example, Arizona beekeepers who have Africanized bees haven’t experienced CCD. Another solution is to develop “biocides” which would be like a medicine to help the bees fight off mites and disease. Vaccines aren’t an option because bees don’t have an adaptive immune system. Beekeepers who irradiate box components before placing a hive inside have had some success, because irradiation kills mites and bacteria.

Third is pesticides, less likely, but still under consideration. Researchers found copious residues of miticides (which some beekeepers apply to bees or to boxes) and other pesticides in the bee wax that beekeepers buy and place in new hives. Use of formic acid, considered a natural substance because it is produced by some species of ants, is widespread and may play a role in increasing bee stress and susceptibility to disease. Bees are affected by a wide range of insecticides, which obviously could play a role. However, there is no common pesticide reside in colonies that experience CCD.

Another hive related possibility is a little more difficult to understand and quantify. Some commercial beekeepers try to get a lot out of their hives. One practice that Dr. Cox Foster questions is too-frequent hive “splitting” because it leads to bee stress. I was also able to find some ruminations on the net that the large cell size used by commercial beekeepers to encourage bee growth may also encourage mite infestations, but couldn’t find any actual data on the subject (anyone need a summer project?).

After her presentation, Dr. Cox Foster shared these links that include more information and info on how individuals can help: The Pollinator Partnership, Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium, and The Status of Pollinators in North America. Another source is the USDA Agricultural Research Service, who has multiple fact sheets, including Colony Collapse Disorder: A Complex Buzz.

One last thing I’d like to share before I end this post – bees are not the only pollinators out there. Of course some aspects of agriculture would have to change if we were no longer able to cart bees across the country, but it wouldn’t be the end of agriculture as some people have said. A Slate article from 2007 called Bee Not Afraid explains. Much of the information in the article matches things that Dr. Cox Foster said in the course of her lecture and in the Q&A session that followed.

Biochar is a fine-grained charcoal high in organic carbon and largely resistant to decomposition. It is produced from pyrolysis of plant and waste feedstocks. As a soil amendment, biochar creates a recalcitrant soil carbon pool that is carbon-negative, serving as a net withdrawal of atmospheric carbon dioxide stored in highly recalcitrant soil carbon stocks. The enhanced nutrient retention capacity of biochar-amended soil not only reduces the total fertilizer requirements but also the climate and environmental impact of croplands. Char-amended soils have shown 50 – 80 percent reductions in nitrous oxide emissions and reduced runoff of phosphorus into surface waters and leaching of nitrogen into groundwater. As a soil amendment, biochar significantly increases the efficiency of and reduces the need for traditional chemical fertilizers, while greatly enhancing crop yields. Renewable oils and gases co-produced in the pyrolysis process can be used as fuel or fuel feedstocks. Biochar thus offers promise for its soil productivity and climate benefits.

Biochar even appears in the 2008 Farm Bill, I learned on the IBI policy site, appearing just before provisions for research of and protection for pollinators. Apparently Senator Ken Salazar (D Colorado) fought to have the language on biochar included.

Biochar Research. Grants may be made under this section for research, extension, and integrated activities relating to the study of biochar production and use, including considerations of agronomic and economic impacts, synergies of co-production with bioenergy, and the value of soil enhancements and soil carbon sequestration.

Ideally, the production of biochar would be coupled to biofuel production (bioplastic, biorefining, etc) such that every molecule of the plant would be useful – while improving soil quality and sequestering carbon! Admittedly, this sounds too good to be true (some naysayers have stepped forward), but I have reason to beleive it. At the recent Breeding Lignocellulosic Crops for the Bioeconomy lecture series at Iowa State, most of the speakers seemed to think use of biochar was a given (speakers included an economist, multiple plant breeders, people from industry and from a non-profit). Their idea of biofuels doesn’t match that in the media or the doom-and-gloom environmentalists at all.
Each biofuel plant would be limited by transportation. In other words, a circle will be drawn around each plant at the boundary where transporting the feedstock becomes too expensive or too carbon positive. The grain (or beans, etc) can be used as food or feed. Some amount of lower stalk, along with the roots, will be left to retain soil. The remaining stalks and leaves will be harvested and deconstructed in a series of enzymatic and industrial steps. Compounds such as xanthan gum and lysine will be extracted (along with any profitable genetically engineered compounds), the starch and sugar will go to ethanol, and the remaining organic material will be burned for power with the charcoal going back to the farms as a soil amendment. This is, in effect, a closed system.
While I’m not quoting him directly, this model was described by Charles Abbas, the charismatic Director of Renewables Research for Archer Daniels Midland who still teaches at the University of Illinois and coined the term “biorefinery”. He believes that we need to wring every last drop of productivity out of the crops we have, becasue 1) we will not be able to depend on petroleum much longer, 2) we have a limited amount of land, and 3) demand for pretty much everything is only going to increase. Our answer is “industrial ecology”. I’ll have a whole post on his talk at the lecture series soon.
Despite the copious media coverage of biofuels lately, I had actually never heard of biochar until I read a post at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog which I heard of through Inoculated Mind that linked to a post titled Soil Mining at Muck and Mystery. Because of the post, I asked about biochar use in biofuel production at the lecture series and learned what the speakers thought about it. Gotta love the blogosphere!

As you know, at 5pm on Sunday, 25 June, an EF-5 tornado struck Parkersburg, Iowa, killing eight and injuring 50. The storm destroyed homes, businesses, City Hall, municipal sewer and water lines and even the local high school in this little town of only 1,800 people.

In addition to this carnage, surrounding farms have been littered with debris. Besides the regular flotsam and jetsam of modern American life, farmers have found entire vehicles and utility poles strewn across corn and soybean fields. This super-natural littering comes at an especially inopportune time in agriculture. Within weeks, corn plants are expected to poke high enough through the dirt to cover this debris in a canopy of green. This hidden wreckage will make fields inaccessible for later field work and harvesting, thus prolonging the Parkersburg tragedy into fall, when anxious growers may have to watch their crop whither for fear of entering their own mine-strewn acres.

I can’t beleive how oblivious I was to farming. Prior to moving to Iowa in 2006, I had only driven past farms – orange groves in Florida, Asian pear groves in Korea, some grains in Maryland and Pennsylvania. I had this idyllic vision of the gentle life of a farmer. What a fool I was.