Do honey bees pollinate wheat?

No. Grasses are flowering plants that are wind pollinated. Since the grasses do not need to attract animal pollinators, the plants do not expend energy to produce colorful petals, nectars, or attractive odors.

However, the grass family feeds a large portion of the human population. According to the Food and Agriculture Association (FAO), the big three—maize (corn), wheat, and rice—account for over 40% of all human calories consumed. Other grains from grass include barley, sorghum, millet, oats, rye, tricale, teff, spelt and kamut.

Like most wind-pollinated plants, the grasses produce large quantities of pollen. Honey bees are particularly attracted to corn pollen and will collect it readily, which causes a problem when the corn is treated with systemic pesticides. The pesticide travels throughout the plant, some of it lodging in the pollen grains. Honey bees end up tainting their food stores when these chemical pesticides are brought into the hive.

How much pesticide in commercial foundation?

A reader in Maryland was told by a master beekeeper that 1) there are fewer chemicals in purchased foundation than previously thought and 2) foundationless hives have just as many chemicals as hives containing purchased foundation. She doubted these gems of wisdom and wanted to know if I’d seen any research supporting these claims.

First off, all the research I’ve read on this subject reports alarming amounts of pesticide—both number and quantity—in manufactured foundation. Particularly common are the acaricides fluvalinate and coumophos, which are used to treat colonies for Varroa mites. I’ve seen no papers claiming otherwise. Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely that foundationless comb would contain as much pesticide as comb built on commercial foundation.

Just think of it logically. Commercial foundation is made my companies that purchase wax from a variety of beekeepers. Usually it is large-scale beekeepers who sell their wax because most small-scale beekeepers do not have enough wax to bother selling.

For various reasons large-scale commercial beekeepers are more likely to use chemical pesticides such as fluvalinate and coumophos in the hive and they are more likely to have their bees working in agricultural areas where multiple pesticides are used on crops. So the wax coming from these hives is more likely to be contaminated with an array of acaricides, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, all of which go into the commercial foundation.

Now suppose you start two new colonies, one on commercial foundation and one foundationless. Even if both colonies bring in pesticide from the field—and even if you treat both colonies with acaricide—the one with the commercial foundation is going to have more total contamination than the other because it had a head start. It is just numbers.

So even if the amount of pesticide in commercial foundation is less than originally reported (which I doubt), there is still going to be more total contamination in a hive with commercial foundation than one without.

Isn’t it possible that your foundationless colony foraged in places with more pesticide than the other colony and ultimately became even more contaminated? Of course it’s possible. But is it likely? Absolutely not.

Rusty
HoneyBeeSuite

Rachel Carson Forum: opening remarks

 
Last night, I was honored to facilitate the 22nd Annual Rachel Carson Forum held at The Evergreen State College and hosted by the Masters of Environmental Science Association, MESA. The panel discussion was on the “Social, Political, and Ecological Implications of Pesticide Use in our Society Today.” Below are my opening remarks.

As a student back in the 1970s, I studied the biochemistry of pesticides. At that time, there was a clear demarcation between systemic and other types of pesticides. Systemics were used strictly for ornamental plants—those plants not eaten by humans or livestock. Yes, an animal could be stricken after consuming the plant, but for the most part, ornamental crops were small and covered little acreage.

But in the intervening years our government—through the actions of the EPA and USDA— has sanctioned the consumption of pesticides by humans. The old theory that you could wash it off is but a memory. By using systemic preparations or genetic manipulation, poisons are now incorporated into the very fabric of the foods we eat. When I see a bee pupa stricken with deformities or a worker bee shivering with convulsions, I always wonder when and where we will draw the line. Living things are, after all, more similar than different. I truly believe that where the honey bee goes mankind will follow.

These developments are not surprising in a system where safety testing is done by the companies who will gain from their approval . . . or in an economy where a company can buy out those who say inconvenient things. None of that has changed.

I also find it disturbing that our government has established no protocols for measuring metabolite toxicity, sub-lethal effects, and synergistic amplification of poisons. The popular press often refers to these chemical processes as if they were newly discovered evils—something we’ve never seen before—but in fact, Rachel Carson addressed all three of these issues by page 31 of Silent Spring.

Yes, the chemicals are different, the terminology is different, but the concepts are just the same. Rachel Carson laid out the facts for all of us to see. So why are we not paying attention? Haven’t we heard that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it?

In re-reading Silent Spring, I can’t help but single out her prophetic words about pollinators. “Man is more dependent on these wild pollinators than he usually realizes. Even the farmer himself seldom understands the value of wild bees and often participates in the very measures that rob him of their services.”

Now, fifty years later, after colony collapse disorder has devastated countless numbers of managed bees, we are suddenly asking what will happen if the honey bee dies out. Ironically, therein lies the beauty of colony collapse disorder: this devastating affliction has focused attention on pesticides like nothing else since Silent Spring. But we should have known . . . Rachel Carson told us this day was coming.

If we intend to turn the tide on the forever-expanding pesticide industry we must remember that education is job one. Armed with what you learn here tonight and a lawn chair, I invite you to spend some time in the gardening section of your local home improvement store. Sit a spell. Watch the pesticides fly out the door. You will be amazed at the trouble we’re in.

I commend MESA for selecting a topic so ironically on point fifty years after the publication of Silent Spring. Tonight, I want you to glean as much as possible from our distinguished panel, then pass it on to your friends and family. All of us—we humans as well as the birds, the bees, the fishes, and frogs—need all the help we can get.

Rusty
HoneyBeeSuite

On the 50th Anniversary of Silent Spring:

 

 MESA at The Evergreen State College

Presents:

The 22nd Annual Rachel Carson Forum

Panel Discussion

on the social, political, and ecological implications of pesticide use in our society today

Wednesday May 2, 2012 at 6 pm

The Evergreen State College Longhouse

Speakers:

Janette Brimmer, Staff Attorney, Earth Justice

Dr. Steven Herman, Professor of Biology, The Evergreen State College

Ciscoe Morris, Host and Owner, Gardening with Ciscoe

Dr. Marion Moses, Founder and President, Pesticide Education Center

Dr. John Perkins, Senior Fellow, National Council for Science and the Environment

Panel Facilitator:

Rusty Burlew, Director, Native Bee Conservancy, with an introduction by Kaiulani Lee

For more information:

MESA at [email protected] or (360) 867-5940

www.evergreen.edu