Neonicotinoids were among the major culprits of bee die-offs. Now RoundUp or glyphosate has been implicated. Although RoundUp doesn’t directly kill the bees, but the glyphosate that ends up in the stamens, nectars, juices of fruits and the supplemental sugars that the bees consume, can wreck havoc on the gut microbiomes of the bees. It is the same effect on humans. If we eat food laced with glyphosate, it reduces the beneficial microbes in our gut, rendering us prone to sickness, cancer and other diseases.
“Bees that came in contact with the herbicide glyphosate in the study had lower levels of healthy gut bacteria that helps digest food and ward off sickness and were more likely to die from pathogens. About half of the healthy bees survived the introduced pathogen Serratia marcescens. Only a tenth of bees affected by glyphosate survived.”
Healthy gut bacteria is essential to all mammals including humans. It makes sense that glyphosate would kill good bacteria because it kills plants, fungi and bacteria indiscriminately, leaving toxic glyphosate resistant weeds. Perhaps we cannot see toxic fungi and bacteria as a result of glyphosate contamination but they are likely there.
When consideration is made for the above scientific studies, it would logically follow that the formulation of glyphosate applied to waterbodies would kill good algae leading to blooms of toxic algae we are seeing in our ponds and lakes.
Bee die-offs were bad in 1991 when I had 85 hives. So, not a lot new, except the hive beetle.
Theories abound…and bees die. Proof as to cause has been slim or nonexistent.
I currently don’t own bees.
The thing about research is that it is generally only conclusive when you begin with a conclusion. Maybe substitute the word culprits with suspects. Keep it real.
I think the jury is still out. Some bee experts believe the key issue is poor diet for HB’s as a result of mono-culture that restricts them to a single food (pollen) source for extended periods. Worse than trying to live on a McDonald’s diet.
I suspect the reason this is so hard to nail is that the causes are myriad.
If you take Roundup out of the agricultural equation (or mono-culture, for that matter) how many people do you think will starve as a result of higher soy and corn prices? With the current world population, partially created by our ability to produce so much “cheap” food using chemical and industrial technology, we now have a tiger by the tail.
Maybe we should outlaw penicillin and other antibiotics and let nature clean up our “mess”. They really screw up our gut micro-biotica and a rapid reduction in the human population would certainly reduce the use of damaging synthetic chemicals- most of which enter our planet through industry and not agriculture.
We require food, but I wonder if we can’t survive without gluing global culture together via the shared worship of consumer goods- the new world religion.
Of course, this shared religion probably reduces the chance of another great war. Global economics as well as a homogeneous global culture, tied together through the internet, makes us practically one government, reducing our wars to comparative skirmishes between the global order and small rebel groups.
Have I digressed?
Any political or philosophical response can be moved to the lounge.
Yes, it tells us nothing of course. I have been saying for some time, having been in the research field, it’s not about science, it’s about money and politics. Scientists will tell you what you want to hear if you give them enough money. At least that was my experience.
Welcome to the jungle.
Having said that it’s not all like that. Just where I worked. So it makes it tough to draw conclusions until we have collaborating studies. Also about these 9 bees. Was statistical analysis performed to determine if the change was significant? Studies today seem to be rather simple and short, with little analysis of the data. Did they do a follow up to see if the bacteria recovered and how quickly they recovered? The killed bacteria may be insignificant. Also the method of administration of round up is important. Since it has such a short half-life, could this high dose of poisoning even be possible in nature?
Political groups have weaponized research so it’s hard to tell what is real and what is propaganda these days. Monsanto will overturn that lawsuit about cancer, the WHO study that reported probably causes cancer, and probably is another way to say they don’t know. The study is reported to be extremely flawed. Many scientists say the study shows the opposite. Also no other study so far has collaborated the findings. It will not hold up in appeals court. .Did I mention 600 studies show it doesn’t cause cancer? Cherry picking is not allowed in court, well unless the judge is a politically motivated which seems to be the case in this initial lawsuit.
The WHO also concluded that coffee probably causes cancer, but 2 years later walked it back. They said it was the hot water, not the coffee. (After receiving a large donation from the coffee lobby) Reminds me of the three times NASA and NOAA got caught changing historical temperature data.. At least they were caught but how many know this? The propaganda worked, even though completely false. See the link from our government on how a whistle blower tells all to Congress. It’s a very sad state we find our country in. Willing to bend to political manipulation so easily. I use this as an example of how studies are used as a political weapon. A sad state of affairs and makes me skeptical of all studies until confirmed by independent researchers. No exception here, Looks like enough here for many further studies, see what we find out. They may be correct? See what further studies report before I conclude anything. May be a good thing as pathogens may die in the bee gut when exposed to round up. Was that studied? Talk to me after another 1000 studies.
Right on Alan, I was talking to a big time beekeeper this past spring about his operation and he said the hardest thing on his bees was mono culture. Especially with the almond crop in California. He would sent his bees from Louisiana to California to pollinate the almond crop them to like Michigan for some other mono culture crop then back to Louisiana. He was going to quit sending his truckloads of bees out west because mono culture is so hard on the bees. They were never developed for mono culture.
It is in your freedom to ignore research results. It is true that there are some bias in the research work, after all, many agrichem companies sponsor various research of various universities. The very few minority biased ones shouldn’t invalidate everything. Rather than be dismissive of all scientific literature let us hear from actual colleagues and their experiences, and take note of if it agrees with the results of others, including the research. And here lies wisdom if the discovery and methodologies presented are in agreement with your knowledge and experience or if the new mechanism presented makes logical and scientific sense. And of course, you should validate it whenever you can in your own field.
It is true that a diversity of food sources are better for bees to make them healthier compared to single food source.
There is actual a REAL solution to the monoculture problem and farmers should be encouraged to practice it. Rather than planting every square nanometer of land to a single crop, why not plant some bee-friendly diversity of plants along the borders of the orchard, along the canals…
It would be conscientious and wise for farmers to set aside a few strips of land, perhaps along the canals or borders to be planted and maintained with bee-friendly plants. These serve as food supplement and herbal medication centers for the bees and other beneficial insects as monocropped plants will often lack well balanced nutrients needed by the bees to remain healthy. And for gardeners, please consider adding plants that are bee friendly and good for other beneficial insects.
Not a scientific article but it drives home the point that there is resiliency in diversity.
Joe I don’t think anyone is dismissing all scientific research in any capacity. The point is that statistics can be manipulated (if you’ve ever studied statistics in college this is the made evident immediately). Parts of this particular study are being dismissed based on empirical evidence and inept statistics. It’s ok to disagree, point being it isn’t proven one way or another, only theorized.
The only problem is that is too expensive for farmers. It may be more responsible to plant bee friendly plants but that doesn’t fit into the economics of farming.
Actually it shouldn’t be that expensive. You see, weed grows in canals, on borders, on wayside of the roads and corners… Weeds grow there! And what do most farmers use? RoundUp!!! And it is bad for the bees.
If those areas grow weeds, might as replace the weeds with bee-friendly and farm friendly non-invasive plants instead of bombarding those areas with Roundup several times each season or every year. Could be one time expense for the seeding or planting and farmers should be able to experiment on what works. Then save on herbicide application and make it friendlier for the bees.
O lord, no. I’m not trying to be negative but you have obviously never farmed for a living. The practices you are implying will never be practiced by farmers who want to continue farming. Ditches and headland have to be maintained. Man farming practices are based on science now. My family owns and farms 5700 acres of timber and ag, we got out of the old “he learned from his father” farming years ago. The farming practices you speak of are bad practice and the people who used them are no longer farming.
I think in Europe there may be a subsidy available to farmers who let their headland grow for animals and the environment. But even that shows that there are significant cost implications to that practice.
I eat a diet free of grain and soybeans for multiple reasons, but there are few of us who eat this way. I also grow/harvest a large percentage of my own food, and I am fortunate to be able to do this. The market demands cheap food; this is the reality of our food system. I know this will not change as long as we don’t have to.
