
A new theory for why bees are declining - fillskills
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8174949/bee-decline-parasites-pesticides-flowers
======
ppereira
It is great to see a review of how multiple factors kill bees, but I hope it
does not deflect attention from the use of neonicotinoids.

There seems to be a bit of a language war taking place. The Science abstract
suggests "reducing pesticide use through adopting more sustainable farming
methods", while the Vox article talks about "reducing pesticide use _when
possible_ ". The news article phrasing suggests that pesticide reduction is
optional.

The Science title is "Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites,
pesticides, and lack of flowers", while the Vox title is "A new theory for why
the bees are vanishing". The paper clearly blames pesticides, while the vox
title suggests (on a quick read) that pesticides are really only a _theory_ ,
and may not be the latest one at that.

One HN comment states "It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them
instead of just assuming the reason is obvious." The corollary is that maybe
we should research more and wait before drawing conclusions. I agree with the
statement, but not the corollary.

I grew up with the schoolyard buzzing in summer time. In Vancouver, Bumble
bees and honey bees were everywhere when the flowers bloomed. At recess and
lunch, the grass would be a blur of flying insects and a single clover would
often be crawling with several bees. Those days are long gone. The fields are
dead. Wikipedia tells me that some of the species may be extinct. I think the
time to act was long ago. I hope it is not too late.

~~~
randomdata
_> I hope it does not deflect attention from the use of neonicotinoids._

Since you appear to be Canadian, how do you feel about the pneumatic planter
dust-off rules (talc/graphite ban) that were implemented last year? It never
seems to get any media attention for some reason, and thus never attracts much
discussion either. The early reports from Health Canada about the year's die-
off, post-change, looked promising although I admittedly haven't followed up
since that was released.

~~~
3pt14159
I'm not the person you are replying to, but I had a similar childhood (lots of
bees in Winnipeg and a small town outside of Toronto) and even though I'm
pretty well read, this is the first I'm hearing about the new rules. It isn't
common knowledge.

~~~
randomdata
I figured as much. I have never seen it mentioned in the press. I farm, which
is probably the only reason I was made aware of it. I found this government
document[1] that touches on the issues, although it appears to be a little
dated.

[1] [http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-
fiche/pollina...](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-
fiche/pollinator-protection-pollinisateurs/index-eng.php)

------
burke
> Honeybees and wild bees alike are mysteriously dying off all over the world.
> And scientists have long struggled to pinpoint why, exactly, that is.

I really don't understand why there's debate over the notion that insecticide
use is killing insects. This is incredibly obvious. Bees are dependent on
flowering plants, which we have recently begun spraying with poison to prevent
them being eaten by insects. Bees are also insects.

~~~
dmix
It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just
assuming the reason is obvious.

Especially if we plan to reduce the damage to their ecosystem.

~~~
pizza234
> It would be helpful to know exactly what's killing them instead of just
> assuming the reason is obvious.

We will never know "exactly", as much as, conceptually, we'll never have
"complete" security in computer systems.

Especially when one of the big players is a corporation who's very glad to
sell contaminated products. Do you really think that they're keen on finding
the "truth" (a reasonable one) about neonicotinoids? I'm sure they're already
very active in obfuscating research.

Besides, in a context where pesticides usage is alarming (or extensive to say
the list), why should should be allowed to use something until it's "exactly"
proved as harmful, instead of preventing it until it's "exactly" proven as
harmless? Of course, reality is more complex, but again, in context, the first
option should not be obvious or granted.

------
sogen
Monsanto Roundup anyone?

98 pesticides found in bee pollen!
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9175290)

and from Wikipedia:

Glyphosate can harm the bacterial ecology of soil and cause micronutrient
deficiencies in plants.[63] Other studies found that while "recommended
dosages of glyphosate did not affect growth rates", much higher dosages
reduced respiration in nitrogen-fixing bacteria.[64][65]

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Roundup, however, is an herbicide...

~~~
sogen
There are about 98 pesticides (of those 10 are herbicides) in bee pollen:

"The 98 pesticides and metabolites detected in mixtures up to 214 ppm in bee
pollen alone represents a remarkably high level for toxicants in the brood and
adult food of this primary pollinator. "

[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009754)

------
joe_the_user
The discussions of bee deaths tend miss a crucial point imho. The bees under
discussion are not wild creatures having their habitats attack by one or
another outside factors. The bees under discussion are a domesticated
creature, kept by professional bee-keepers for a variety of fruit and
vegetable industries.

Like all agriculture, bee keeping is driven by costs and benefits. As a
standard procedure and just as an example, bee-keeper remove most honey and
feed their bees on corn syrup [1] - this weakens the hive but not necessarily
enough to enough to kill it and it makes money for the bee keepers. You can
imagine there are many related variables in this. How much the bees are
exposed to pesticides is likely one of these variables.

It's cost effect to keep hives at the edge of survival - until whatever the
next bug is appears and remedial must be taken. These work 'till something
else comes along.

Maybe "colony collapse" is mysterious but overall situation is pretty clear,
just The Jungle applied to bees [1].

[1] [http://phys.org/news/2013-04-high-fructose-corn-syrup-
tied-w...](http://phys.org/news/2013-04-high-fructose-corn-syrup-tied-
worldwide.html) [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle)

~~~
bsder
> As a standard procedure and just as an example, bee-keeper remove most honey
> and feed their bees on corn syrup

The feeding on corn syrup is generally due to the fact that the bees are
feeding on a monoculture. When the bees are pollinating a crop, there is _NO_
other crop around for miles. The corn syrup with additives is an attempt to
buttress any dietary deficiencies.

------
niels_olson
Why is it that corporate actors prefer monocultures? Bees, green peppers, or
computer operating systems?

In any of those cases, is a monoculture really more secure? Or just easier to
maintain long enough to retire and hope the whole thing doesn't collapse?

~~~
Houshalter
Monocultures are more productive. Someone finds a tree that produces much more
fruit than normal, and so it gets cloned thousands of times. Or for crops that
can only reproduce sexually, they carefully select the exact optimal
combination of genes, and then use a hybridization process to create only
seeds that have the combination they want.

Sexual reproduction mixes up the genes and so the rare combination of genes
that gives a much higher yield, is unlikely to occur again. This isn't an
insignificant effect either, sometimes the offspring only produce a fraction
of the yield of the highly fit parents.

It has nothing to do with corporate actors. This has been going on for over a
century by private farmers and government university breeding programs. And we
can produce a lot more food a lot cheaper because of it.

Not all is lost though. As our genetic technology improves, we will be able to
deal with these issues better.

------
holri
Bees have been breeding to be calm for hundred of years, to ease the work of
the beekeepers. But therefore they are also less aggressive to intruders and
pests. Wild bees and bumblebees are far more aggressive.

Their diversity and therefore robustness was also reduced because of excessive
breeding to maximum profit for men.

Also their honey is their medicine and food and is taken away and substituted
with a poor sugar water substitution.

------
aaron695
They seem to just dump every current theory in a pile and call this pile a new
theory. (Climate change is even thrown in, in the main paper)

I think as a rule of thumb, things don't happen because of multiple reasons.

If someone tells you this is great because of X, Y, Z chances are Y and Z are
made up to make the argument.

80/20 rule. There's always a main reason for things, the other stuff is just
fluff that really doesn't matter.

This is different to cause and effect, once you destroy a habitat you create a
new order of things for an animal. Then disease might turn into the 80%.

~~~
jhedwards
From what I have studied, I think the case is actually the opposite: as a
rule, biological phenomena are usually the result of multiple causation
because those systems are extremely complex and often very resilient.

Mario Bunge gave the following example in his book "Causality and Modern
Science": even in a simple system like a wire connected to a battery it is not
accurate to say "the battery causes the increase in charge in the wire". The
increase is determined by the interaction between the battery and the
resistance property of the wire, it cannot be explained by the battery alone.
A different wire might not have any charge at all. Thinking in this way about
a system as complex as bee populations, the probability of multiple causation
seems very high indeed.

------
vizzah
I wouldn't be surprised if it`s mobile masts what's killing them..

~~~
deeviant
I would be surprised if it's mobile communication towers is what's killing
them...

~~~
Freestyler_3
Especially since they are bolted firmly to the ground :/

\-- Anyway, important issue. Shouldnt have to wait for test results from
europe...

~~~
vizzah
I referred to EMR radiation, obviously. Too bad HN readers took it literally.

