USDA Colony Collapse Disorder Progress Report issued....

[mike_c]

Source: Primary source from the USDA CCD Steering Committee

Mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill

, this second annual report on Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) research progress represents the work of a large number of scientists from 8 Federal agencies, 2 state departments of agriculture, 22 universities, and several private research efforts.

In response to the unexplained losses of U.S. honey bee colonies, now known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) led a collaborative effort to define an approach to CCD, resulting in the CCD Action Plan in July 2007. Many universities and organizations—Federal, State, and private—were involved in developing this plan and are carrying out the work that addresses the CCD problem. The CCD Action Plan is organized under four topic areas:

1. Survey and (sample) data collection;
2. Analysis of existing samples;
3. Research to identify factors affecting honey bee health, including attempts to recreate CCD symptomology; and
4. Mitigation and preventive measures.

Highlights of progress in these topic areas are summarized below.

Topic I: Survey and (Sample) Data Collection

Several survey and data collection efforts have been underway to provide baseline information on CCD, resulting in better defined CCD symptoms, and documented evidence of increasing honey bee losses. Colonies with poor health, including colonies with CCD symptoms, exhibited increased pathogen levels and evidence of pesticide residues. General colony loss levels in 2009 were 29 percent and increased to 34 percent in 2010. Losses are a major problem for the beekeeping industry and potentially to commodities that depend on bees for pollination services.


Topic II: Analysis of Existing Samples

Based on an initial analysis of collected bee samples (CCD- and non-CCD affected), reports have noted the high number of viruses and other pathogens, pesticides, and parasites present in CCD colonies, and lower levels in non-CCD colonies. This work suggests that a combination of environmental stressors may set off a cascade of events and contribute to a colony where weakened worker bees are more susceptible to pests and pathogens. Testing this complex hypothesis is the focus of joint efforts between Federal and university scientists funded by ARS and NIFA.


Topic III: Research to Identify Factors Affecting Honey Bee Health, Including Attempts to Recreate CCD Symptomology

Survey and analysis results indicate that many pesticides, parasites, and pathogens are associated with CCD. Therefore, efforts to explore the role of these factors continue. Findings currently suggest an association of sub-lethal effects of pesticides with CCD. Two common miticides in particular, coumaphos and fluvalinate, which are pesticides registered for use in bee colonies to control varroa mites, are suspect, either acting individually or in combination (e.g., synergistically, where the combination of the two compounds is more toxic than either compound alone).

The emerging evidence of pesticide exposure to pollinators and potential interactive effects indicates the need to further study pesticides for their potential interactions with CCD. Studies have also confirmed suspected links between CCD and poor colony health, inadequate diet, andlong-distance transportation. Research results indicate that both supplemental protein diets and natural pollen feedings can increasecolony strength and offset the negative impacts of stress caused by pests, pesticides, and long-distance transportation of bees by beekeeping operations.


Topic IV: Mitigation and Management Measures

Efforts to mitigate honey bee losses are highlighted by two national multi-year projects, the ARS Areawide Project on Honey Bee Health and a NIFA-funded Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP), which are allowing researchers to test various hypotheses related to poor bee health and provide further insights into the problem, and strategies for better bee management. Key accomplishments to date include the development of new, varroa mite-resistant bee stocks, improved diets and timing of feeding, a strategy (comb irradiation and ozone treatment) to reduce pathogen levels, and identification of several alternative pollinator species. Progress has also been made toward developing new detection capabilities for pests and pathogens, integrated control strategies for varroa mites, and a set of comprehensive best management practices that will provide beekeepers with specific guidelines to improve the health of their bees.

As a method for potentially mitigating the occurrence of CCD, and in an effort to encourage the provision of improved and sustainable habitat for both managed honey bees and all pollinators, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is implementing its NRCS Pollinator Initiative, which is a multifaceted initiative involving the following: (1) the revision of conservation practice standards to better address pollinator habitat needs; (2) the identification and provision of recommended ecoregion-specific, pollinator-friendly vegetation as part of the implementation of the NRCS Plant Materials Centers’ Pollinator Conservation Action Plan; (3) the provision of support and encouragement for enhancing pollinator habitat under a variety of conservation programs as identified in the NRCS Programs Pollinator Action Plan; and (4) the provision of awareness-building materials, training, and outreach about the importance of pollinators and helpful actions individuals may pursue.

During the past 3 years, numerous causes for CCD have been proposed and investigated. Although the cause of CCD is still unknown, research has provided support to the hypothesis that CCD may be a syndrome caused by many different factors that work individually or in combination. Looking ahead, studies will focus increasingly on the interaction of multiple factors in causing CCD.

More detailed findings follow in the body of the report.

Read more: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2010.pdf

---

Since this is a public report, I think it's appropriate to quote more than just four paragraphs, i.e. I don't think there are copyright issues. I've posted the executive summary. The whole report is available at the link.

I know there has been considerable interest about this topic here in the past. I haven't finished reading the whole report-- the link just showed up on the entomology discussion list Entomo-L minutes ago so this is brand new, or at least the report is.

on edit-- I've just realized that I've already read parts of this report before, and it was actually issued on December 17 2010 or so. Apologies if anyone else has already posted it. Mods, it might be more appropriate to move this out of LBN?

[Javaman]

1. USDA and the EPA wallpapers over the actual cause...

(They have known what the cause is for a while, but the reason it hasn't been death with is the usual reason. Money.)

Germany and France Ban Pesticides Linked To Bee Deaths; Geneticist Urges U.S. Ban

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/37493

Collapse Disorder (CCD), at least one key bee expert is calling for a ban of the same pesticide in the United States. "In the United States, drastic action is needed," says Canadian geneticist Joe Cummins, explaining that U.S. farmers and beekeepers shouldn't have to wait for more evidence or for an air-tight explanation for the complex syndrome, which threatens one in every third bite of food in the United States. Now most apiarists and scientists realize that pesticides are a factor in CCD, he says.

Cummins' remarks, in an interview with GreenRightNow, come less than a month after Germany's ban of clothianidin, a pesticide commonly used to keep insects off of corn crops. Germany banned the pesticide after heaps of dead bees were found near fields of corn coated in the pesticide, and in response to scientists who report that the insecticide severely impairs, and often kills, the honeybees that corn and other crops depend on for pollination.

The German government took the extraordinary action to protect bees and other essential pollinators, stating that there is now enough compelling evidence connecting the chemical to Bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) in that country.

The ban also will likely fuel the European debate over genetically modified food, which involves treating crop seeds to resist harm from pesticide treatments. Critics of such modified foods say they are harming the environment, and have unknown human consequences, for little or no crop gain. Some scientists in Europe have called for their ban.

(there were only 4 paragraphs for this particular article)

http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/clothianidin.pdf

(it's used primarily on corn crops and apparently works very well. And it's made by Bayer. Since Monsanto has had control of the corn and soy crops in the US for at least 20 years, is there any wonder why it hasn't been banned in the US?)

Here is the google search on link after link for people calling for it's ban. So far, the US gov't has had deaf ears to it all.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS404&q=us+ban+on+Clothianidin&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS404&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=us+ban+on+Clothianidin&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e4d4d211f0ded287

And lastly, here is the EPA's responce...

http://food.change.org/blog/view/epa_defends_approval_of_bayers_bee-killing_pesticide

"EPA recently received a letter from the National Honey Bee Advisory Board and other organizations requesting that the Agency remove clothianidin from the market. That letter and subsequent press coverage contain several erroneous statements. Reports that a clothianidin honeybee field study is a "core" study (that is, a study routinely required to support the registration of a pesticide) are not true. Further there is confusion about the review status of the study.

EPA scientists routinely reevaluate studies to determine whether the information submitted is valid and if it is relevant or useful to the regulatory matter in question (in this case a request for a new use). While this study was thought to be invalid as cited by the above groups, EPA reevaluation of the study determined that it contains information useful to EPA's risk assessment. This field study revealed the majority of hives monitored, including those exposed to clothianidin during the previous season, survived the over-wintering period."

So while France and Germany ban the pesticide, and the National Honey Bee Advisory Board say ban it, the EPA sees no reason to.

The piece goes on to highlight the inaccuracies in the EPA's position.

In the end, like all things, it comes down to money.