Perils of commercial beekeeping
Honeybees pollinate crops but endure stress, parasites
and disease. Solutions are coming.
Paul Driessen
One of
America’s earliest food crops – almonds – is also one of the most important for
commercial beekeepers. Almonds depend on bees for pollination, but the
explosive growth of this bumper crop taxes the very honeybees the industry
needs to thrive.
California’s
Central Valley produces over 80% of the world’s almonds, valued at over $4
billion in 2012. The boom is poised to continue, with new food products and
expanding overseas markets increasing demand to the point that no young almond
trees are available for purchase until 2016.
Demand for
almonds translates into demand for pollination. So every year commercial
beekeepers transport some 60% of all US honeybees to California’s almond groves
in February and March, when it’s still winter in most other states. It’s one of
their biggest challenges.
For one
thing, bee colonies, especially those from northern states, lack sufficient
time to emerge from their heat-conserving winter clusters. Some beekeepers thus
maintain 20,000 to 30,000 hives. Each one requires careful inspection for
diseases and parasites – a meticulous, Herculean task on such a scale.
Complicating
the situation, beekeepers are trying to work within a large-scale agricultural
system, using an insect whose husbandry practices have changed little since the
nineteenth century. The larger the commercial beekeeper’s stock, the harder it
can be to tend them and recover from financial setbacks in the form of lost
bees.
Almond
growers will need 1.5 million hives this year, estimates Colorado beekeeper
Lyle Johnston. “It takes almost all the commercial bees in the United States,”
to pollinate the almond crop, he says. The payoff can amount to half an
individual keeper’s yearly profit.
However,
bees can come back from California “loaded with mites and every other disease
you can think of,” beekeeper Ed Colby explains. That can often mean bee colony
deaths. Last year, US beekeepers experienced an average 30% overwinter bee
loss; some lost 10% to 15% of their hives, while others lost much more. It’s a
normal cost of doing business, but it can be painful.
Last year’s
rate was higher than normal, and higher than any keeper would want. But it was
not the “bee-pocalypse” that some news stories claimed. The real story is that
efforts to identify a single unifying cause for higher-than-usual losses have
failed. Scientists are discovering that multiple issues affect bee health.
Urban,
suburban and agricultural “development has reduced natural habitats, clearing
out thousands of acres of clover and natural flowers,” a 60 Minutes investigative report observed. “Instead, bees are
spending week after week on the road, feeding on a single crop, undernourished
and overworked.”
The
migration itself is stressful, notes Glenwood Springs, Colorado Post-Independent reporter Marilyn
Gleason. “First, there’s the road trip, which isn’t exactly natural for bees,
and may include freezing cold or scorching heat. Bees ship out of Colorado
before the coldest weather, and drivers may drench hot, thirsty bees with water
at the truck wash.”
The
convergence in almond groves of so many commercial bees from all over the
country creates a hotbed of viruses and pathogens that can spread to many
hives. The varroa destructor mite carries at least 19 different bee viruses and
diseases, causing major impacts on bee colonies. Parasitic phorid flies are
another problem, and highly contagious infections also pose significant
threats. The intestinal fungus nosema
ceranae, for example, prevents bees from absorbing nutrition, resulting in
starvation.
The tobacco
ringspot virus was likewise linked recently to the highly publicized problem
known as “colony collapse disorder.” CCD occurs when bees in a colony
disappear, leaving behind only a queen and a few workers. The term originally
lumped together a variety of such “disappearing” disorders recorded in
different locales across hundreds of years, as far back as 950 AD in Ireland.
Thankfully, as during past episodes, these unexplained incidents have declined
in recent years and, despite all these challenges, overall US honeybee
populations and the number of managed colonies have held steady for nearly 20
years.
These days,
perhaps the biggest existential threat to bees is campaigns purporting to save
them. Extreme-green groups like the Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action
Network of North America are blaming an innovative new class of pesticides
called neonicotinoids for both over-winter bee losses and CCD.
Allied with
several outspoken beekeepers, the activists are pressuring the Environmental
Protection Agency, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency and government
regulatory agencies to follow Europe’s lead – and ban neonics. Instead of
protecting bees and beekeepers, however, their campaigns will likely cause
greater harm – because they ignore the multiple threats that scientists have identified,
and because a neonic ban will result in farmers using pesticides that are more
toxic to bees.
The
European Union’s political decision to suspend neonic use came because France’s
new agriculture minister banned their use. That meant French farmers would be
at a distinct disadvantage with the rest of Europe, if they were the only ones
unable to use the pesticide, noted British environmental commentator Richard
North. They could lose $278 million per season in lost yields and extra
pesticide spraying.
So the
French agricultural ministry sought an EU-wide ban on all neonicotinoids. After
several votes and a misleading report on the science, the European Commission
imposed a ban, over the objections of many other EU members, who note that the
evidence clearly demonstrates the new pesticides are safe for bees.
Years-long
field tests have found that real-world exposures have no observable effects on
bee colonies. Other studies have highlighted other significant insect, fungal,
human and other issues that, singly or collectively, could explain CCD. Having
analyzed scores of 2007-2012 bee death incidents, Canadian bee experts
concluded that “…very few of the serious bee kills involve neonicotinoid
pesticides. Five times as many ‘major’ or ‘moderate’ pesticide-related bee
kills were sourced to non-neonic chemicals.”
In Canada’s
western provinces, almost 20 million acres of 100% neonic-treated canola is
pollinated annually by honeybees and tiny alfalfa leaf-cutter bees. Both
species thrive on the crop, demonstrating that neonics are not a problem.
Large-scale field studies of honeybees at Canadian universities and a bumblebee
field study by a UK government agency found no adverse effects on bees.
Last
October, a team of industry scientists published a four-year study of the
effects of repeated honeybee exposure to neonic-treated corn and rapeseed
(canola) pollen and nectar under field conditions in several French provinces.
The study found similar mortality, foraging behavior, colony strength and
weight, brood development and food storage in colonies exposed to seed-treated
crops and in unexposed control colonies. This also indicates low risk to bees.
At least
two more major, recently completed university-run field research projects
conducted under complex, costly scientific laboratory guidelines (“good lab
practices”) are awaiting publication. All indications to date suggest that they
too will find no observable adverse effects on bees at field-realistic
exposures to neonicotinoids.
Meanwhile
Project ApisM., a partnership of agro-businesses and beekeepers, has invested
$2.5 million in research to enhance the health of honeybee colonies.
Switzerland-based Syngenta has spent millions expanding bee habitats in Europe
and North America, through Project Pollinator. Bayer has built bee health
centers in Europe and the United States, and Monsanto’s Beeologics subsidiary
is developing technology to fight varroa mites.
None of
that matters to the anti-pesticide activists. They are using pressure tactics
to make Canada and the United States copy the EU. That would be a huge mistake.
Science, not politics, should prevail.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org)
and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green
power - Black death.