Talk:Colony collapse disorder/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GM crops

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

There are several of the theories regarding CCD which run counter to the evidence; nonetheless, the fact remains that people have proposed them, so they DO bear mention here - as does the evidence that supports or refutes the various theories! That's an integral part of a balanced presentation of a topic. Dyanega 22:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also, however, a limit to how speculative the presentation here should be; a few of the recent edits to the section on GM crops have taken this to an extreme, and cannot be supported; no one has ever shown that honey bees afflicted with CCD are gathering pollen from GM corn. In fact, the German study cited actively fed corn pollen to bees, so even in this case, the situation is artificial. Having read the cited work, it is also significant that healthy honey bee colonies were not affected adversely by Bt pollen, and thus the editor has not given a balanced representation, and I intend to include an appropriate quote in the article. Dyanega 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To editor Josef09: your recent edit inserted the following text: "So there seems to be a coicidence with the German results at the level of special experiments with Bt maize and priliminary CCD findings " There is nothing in that reference that links CCD in the US to Bt pollen - this connection appears to be something that you, yourself, are proposing, and thus would fall under WP:NOR provisions. If you can find a researcher who has evidence that the bee die-off in the US is in any way related to Bt crops, then by all means, provide a citation. If, on the other hand, this is speculation (i.e., no evidence) but from a known source, then it can still be cited, but it needs to be noted that the claim is speculative. I have responded to your comments on my user page there. Dyanega 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that the quote you attribute to Hackenberg is unverifiable, and does not indicate what spatial scale he was referring to - Pennsylvania alone, or a larger area. I further note that the list "corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" is not composed solely of plants that have commercially-developed Bt-containing strains, as you imply. I am aware of corn and cotton (the latter is not used for pollen by honey bees), and that there are experimental (as opposed to commercial) versions of soybeans, canola, and sunflowers, but I am unaware of apples, vine crops and pumpkins modified to contain Bt genes - so your closing phrase "Thus most of the commercially grown Bt plants seem to be included" is somewhat misleading. Especially if the only "commercially grown Bt plants" in the US are corn, cotton, and tobacco. Dyanega 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

to the editor Dyanega: I think your changes are o.k. And it is good, you checked it over.

Bees use corn in tassel as a source of nectar. Pollen is collected opportunistically to a minor extent. Dysmorodrepanis 11:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

More contradictions

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

Contradictions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not much mention beyond corn or cotton in regards to GMO exposure. There are other pollen/nectar heavy plants attractive to bees which have been genetically modified and may be loose in the environment. Has anybody considered alfalfa? It's pervasive and can be found all over the U.S. 71.194.160.54 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Bt toxin in GM alfalfa, to my knowledge, therefore it is irrelevant to the present issue. This article is about honey bees dying, and NOT about the politics of GM crops. Dyanega 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You are hung up on completely anecdotal information - Hackenberg's personal opinion about what crops some unknown set of beekeepers have been keeping their bees near, and extrapolating from there to arrive at an unjustified conclusion; that there is Bt pollen causing bees to die from Nosema infections, and that this is behind CCD. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that this is the case, and, furthermore, this is not even Hackenberg's opinion. The factor that all these crops have in common, according to Hackenberg, is that they are all treated with neonicotinoid pesticides. Just because two of the plants on the list MIGHT contain Bt toxin in SOME areas is such a tentative and speculative connection that it honestly does not belong in this article. The evidence argues very strongly against this hypothesis, especially as the only potentially negative effect of Bt pollen hinges upon the bees ALSO having Nosema infections, and this is simply not what the researchers and beekeepers have observed. Do you know of any citations showing significant Nosema infections in CCD-affected colonies other than Hackenberg's personal colonies in Pennsylvania? If so, then include them as evidence supporting the possible connection. In the absence of such citations, Hackenberg is a single positive data point in a sea of negative data points. It has nothing to do with me changing or not changing my theories - none of these are my theories! If the bees that are dying are not being exposed to Bt pollen, and are not infected by Nosema, then the theory that Bt pollen is responsible for weakening bees cannot explain CCD; that is not theorizing, it is observing that the theory is incompatible with the evidence, and stating it plainly in the article so readers know that it is an unsupported theory.

First it is not my theory, because it is exactly what was written in the section on pesticides: "... many commercial beekeeping operations are mobile, transporting hives over large geographic distances over the course of a season, potentially exposing the colonies to different pesticides at each location. Third, the bees themselves place pollen and honey into long-term storage, effectively, meaning that there may be a delay of anywhere from days to months before contaminated provisions are fed to the colony, negating any attempts to associate the appearance of symptoms with the actual time at which exposure to pesticides occurred." (Look to the pesticides section) You just have to change pesticides with "crops" and/or "breeds". And your arguments, that beekeepers see "tassels" but not "pesticides" so there must be a difference, is not an argument at all, because the beekeepers didn't know till now that the tassels could be dangerous or could include a bee threatening substance - This is not my theory but it is obvious that bees were feeding to some extend Bt pollen from maize and nectar from Bt-cotton. Hackenberg stated that - and he is the only one who talked about the facts what the bees were feeding on: "beekeepers that have been most affected so far have been close to corn, cotton, soybeans, canola, sunflowers, apples, vine crops and pumpkins" - I do not interpret Hackenberg - and he may have his own theories and they may be justified. Kill Hackenberg if you want from this page - but he is the only reliable source on ccd bees feeding - and he for sure is a main "secondary source".

.bogobogo

You cannot simply substitute the word "pollen" for "pesticides"! They are DIFFERENT phenomena! A pollen grain can be examined and identified, so a beekeeper can tell what plant it came from; they cannot do the same for a pesticide contaminant. Long-term storage does not interfere with a beekeeper's ability to trace a pollen source, and it DOES interfere with their ability to trace a pesticide source. They are DIFFERENT. It is plainly and explicitly your theory that these bees have collected Bt corn - you SPECIFICALLY offer the opinion above that "it is obvious that bees were feeding to some extend Bt pollen from maize and nectar from Bt-cotton" - that is a THEORY - unsupported, personal, and a violation of WP:NOR. It is NOT verifiable, in any sense, and you cannot include it here! Read the editing window on your computer: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". I cannot possibly be more clear about this, and you risk being blocked from editing if you persist in violating WP policy this way! I have not removed Hackenberg from the page because he is one of the leading proponents of the theory that imidacloprid is responsible for CCD. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

First I have to excuse: I did not find your comments till yesterday night. (I never made a secret that I am no wiki-professional and I am not native speaking.) I found your "sock puppets" insulting and thats the reason why I went on.

Second: You are only a little bit right, if somebody would look into the ccd hives and tell what kind of pollen is in there. But the beekeepers never looked at the pollen or the different plants as beeing subtoxic or subletal - and for sure they will do it in the future. But Bt is a pesticide (it has been authorized as such, as "plant incorporated protectant") and nearly nobody looked at it (who traced its pollen sources - and who is publishing what? )- You are right, if you know that there could be something with the pollen, you could find out easier the "systemic" pesticide Bt - as a scientist with laboratories (Where are the laboratories? who traced it back to the pollen?). And with pollen there are simalarities with systemic pesticides like imidacloprid. But this analysis did not happen and it seems it does not happen. There is nothing out there except the statement of Hackenberg and also the suspicions of some other beekeepers. (I do not interpret Hackenberg - I take him as main "secondary source"). Now as long as nobody publishes what ccd bees were feeding on, the only evidence of interaction is the likelihood of plantings. Everything in science is a theory - and if you think it is a theory that bees in the US like cotton and also take corn pollen, when in tassels, than take it as such, but the opposite theory that bees do not do it and/or do only feed on Non-Bt-cotton and Non-Bt-maize is quite courious - if this is a violation on WP:NOR ? (For the simple things you do not find sources easy) - Some likelihoods and some facts you have to take for granted, even if they have not been proofed scientifically or are ad hoc "verifyable" - it was me who brought in that bees can feed on maize pollen, because I have seen it on my own as a child - but it was quite a hard job to "verify" it for wikipedia. bogobogo 05:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And now "Nosema", I never pushed this theory, that there is "the cause of CCD", but it is interesting that out od 7 samples 4 had "Nosema", and this is the only primary research on CCD bees in the public domain (and the report still is called "preliminary", but it is the only one). You can say it is too small and so on - but you do not have evidences that there is better information (or you should write it in). You are not allowed to count all other states, where there was no research on CCD bees, against the Nosema bees in PA. Your argument on the corn-states not affected are o.k. - DID I kill your statements? --- No, I did not..bogobogo

The only documented connection between Bt crops and honey bee health is the single German study which indicates that bees with Nosema infections are more likely to die when fed Bt pollen. That is the paragraph into which you have been trying to force your edit, and the context in which your theory has been presented. Therefore, the only verifiable theory involved here is that Bt affects colonies by exacerbating Nosema infections; any other suggested links are personal theories. At present, every other published study and review indicates that Bt pollen is not lethal to honey bees. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You mix up on lethal andd toxic and some other chronic, sublethal and subtoxic effects. Additionally, the real studies - if you study them are so thin and small. Have you seen the EPA-studies and their peer review? ("summary" is a euphemism - You just find one sentence out there - the industries themselves made or ordered the studies a.s.o. - but you cannot "verfy" anything with them.) And the studies on Bt and adult honeybees with long term monitoring, I did not find - but I am open for additional literature.bogobogo 06:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will further note that your repeated insistence on inserting the comment about pollen being placed into storage is being removed - and will continue to be removed - because it is simply NOT the same situation as with systemic pesticides, and is not relevant to whether or not the theory regarding damaging effects of Bt is valid. The point about systemic pesticides is that beekeepers cannot see that they are there. Because they cannot see that they are there, there is no way for a beekeeper to associate any colony deaths with the insecticide even if they later find evidence of contamination in the colony - it is this latter point that makes the long-term storage of honey/pollen significant in this context - because the contaminated pollen/honey cannot be traced to a specific source, and because a time delay before symptoms appear might mislead the beekeepers (that is, they would fail to correctly associate the appearance of symptoms with the area in which the exposure occurred). In the case of Bt pollen, a beekeeper CAN see if they are keeping their colonies near a corn field, so if they were to notice colony deaths later, then unless they were memory-impaired, they would still be able to trace the source of the problem ("Hmm. Maybe they picked up bad pollen from that corn last month?") - so the long-term storage effect would not make any difference in this context - the beekeepers would not be misled, since they would know that their colonies had been exposed to corn (in contrast to them NOT knowing that their bees had been exposed to systemic insecticides). Remember - please - that this portion of this article deals with the evidence supporting or refuting the different theories; the phenomenon of long-term storage is relevant to theories that pesticides may be involved, because the evidence includes what the beekeepers are able to observe (you can't rule pesticides out just because they were not observed, DUE TO the potential for long-term storage); it is far less relevant (if relevant at all) to the theory that Bt corn pollen may be involved, because Bt corn CAN be ruled out if beekeepers are not reporting that they kept their hives near Bt corn, regardless of whether the pollen is in long-term storage. Dyanega 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that Bt is also some sort of systemic: there is an extremely high production of ~Cry1A-toxin per hectare Cry1A-toxin in some varieties was 1500-2000 times higher than the threshold for the treatment of one hectare crop with natural Bt-product DIPEL???) Who saw this systemic growth?.bogobogo

And nobody was talking about direct toxic effects (I did not say all those toxic studies are wrong - the suggestion is that that nobody looked at the subtoxic - at the subletal levels and a.s.o.81.223.24.208 18:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).bogobogo I will come later back to this.

If no one has looked at it, then you could not include it in the article! The only thing you could state in the article in such a case is "No one has documented subtoxic effects" - and that is not true! The article already cites the existence of sublethal effects, in the sentence "in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens." The point remains that no one has yet demonstrated a link between Bt and CCD, and there are verifiable sources that explictly state the contrary. Dyanega 20:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

well, which links have been demonstrated between the potential causes and ccd (Tell me!). The whole "CCD" is one theory (it is real funny how the world is reconstructed through the definition of a new decease) and all the causes connected are theories and within the possible causes are theories and nearly all the theories have contradictions (it is a patchwork of theories and of some incidental research (usually not from authorities) - and if it comes to "pollinator decline" you meet similar theories. I did not say, I have the link demonstrated. You wrote what speaks against this link, and I cited what speaks for this link (so I did not drop your sentences). I am not able to demonstrate other things. For sure , I stop now. I brought in my best knowledge- and I think it made wikipedia better. -But I have litmited resources - especially time. Lets thanks for your patience as WIKI-Professional - but for sure I still do not understand all your arguments fully, but they are good constructed - (sorry I didn't find your comments earlier - I really was looking for them - and for sure, I did not want to be your "sock puppet" - its the first time, I have found out what you mean, and that it is not a direct insult. But as long as the CCD WG does not publish more, and the beekeepers keep more or less silent - and they have also their reasons why - we have got a German phrase which says, "this all is a discussion on the emperer's beard" - well wait till he gets shaved.) bogobogo 08:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

scale of disorder

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

Sunspots & Dance

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

Please allow me to quote from WP official policy (in this case, Wikipedia:Fringe theories):

Theories which have not received critical review from the scientific community should be excluded from articles about mainstream scientific subjects. If the purpose of the article is to explain a scientific subject and there are people who dispute this subject, unless there is a verifiable refutation from the scientific community the theory does not represent a significant minority opinion within science itself. The theory may still be written about and expounded upon in articles devoted to the theory itself or non-scientific contexts.

Accordingly, this "theory" does not merit inclusion in this article, which is most definitely about a mainstream scientific subject, nor did the edit proposed on 3 April 2007 by 24.61.249.54 which mentioned something from an AM radio broadcast about an "ozone hole" theory. Dyanega 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)