What does it mean for Organic corn yields to be 71% of the national average?  What does it mean that Organic soy yields are 66% of the national average?   One way to put this in perspective is to ask the question, “how many years ago was non-Organic ag getting the kind of yields that Organic saw in 2008?” Through a host of technical and operational advances, the yields of most crops in the developed world have been increasing steadily ever since the mid 20th century.  This is a very good thing because we have thus been able to feed a growing world population without even more land-use-conversion than has happened.  A high research investment crop like corn has yields that have been going up at a pace of 2 bushels/acre/year even for the national average. Even a low research investment crop like oats has seen yields increase by about 0.4 bushels/acre/year. So it becomes interesting to take the 2008 Organic yields and compare them to historical data about yield trends.  The graph below does this for US Soybeans and has a key that will pertain to the following illustrations. The yield data for Organic soy came from a total of 1,331 farms and 98,113 acres, so it is probably not an artifact.  That 2008 Organic yields of a nitrogen fixing crop would be like those of 29 years ago is surprising.  My guess is that it reflects higher weed competition and less moisture retention because of tillage.  Soybeans are not a pesticide-intensive crop, but perhaps some seed treatments and an occasional foliar spray account for some of the difference.

It is interesting that Organic grain corn yields are equivalent to the trend from only 21.5 years ago (2,146 farms, 143,432 acres).  In this case there is also the fertilizer difference, but my guess would be that the Organic growers get the benefit of the massive investment that has been made in Corn genetics. Organic wheat production is equivalent to that from even earlier eras – 57 years for Winter Wheat and 58 years for Spring Wheat on a national basis.  Even on a single state basis, the differential is large.  See the graphs for South Dakota Spring Wheat and New York Winter Wheat below.

(The SD Organic data comes from 92 farms and 20,867 acres)

(The NY Organic data comes from 44 farms and 2,417 acres)

Since wheat is a relatively low input crop, the difference is probably a function of fertilizer efficiency, weed competition, and moisture loss during tillage.

The crops listed above have less than 1% Organic acres and often far less.  However, the same time equivalents are seen for the row crops that have a more significant Organic share.

(Organic Flax is 4.1% of the US total,85 farms, 13,958 acres)

(Organic Oats are 2.94% of the US total, 1,040 farms, 41,016 acres)

(Organic Barley is 1.25% of the US total, 578 farms, 47,227 acres)

As we enter into a new round of rising global food prices, the idea of a production system that effectively eliminates decades of of productivity gain is not attractive.  Organic row cropping is unlikely to ever be employed on a significant acreage, and from a food supply perspective, this is a good thing.

There are additional crops and state-level examples available here (also embedded below).  Graphs by Steve Savage from USDA NASS data.  You are welcome to comment here or to email me at feedback.sdsavage@gmail.com

A Detailed Analysis of US Organic Crops

First let’s talk about Romania.  I’m no expert, but I’ve hosted Romanian scientists in my lab.  It is a country and people trying to join the highly industrialized nations of the world.  There is a desire to move from the historical challenges of being a former Eastern Bloc nation into a modern economic power.  Right now a sagging economy is weighing heavily on the country and impairing their ascent.

Until recently, one of their strengths was agriculture, and one of their major crops was potato. In particular, they used Bt-producing transgenic potato to resist attack of the Colorado Beetle, a beetle clearly out of its jurisdiction in Romania.  Switching to Bt potato saved $10 million USD a year for farmers, $4 million in insecticides and $6 million in their application.  Here transgenic technology made the farmer more competitive and helped Romania grow as a food exporter.

Romania also grew herbicide resistant soybeans.  Before 2007 they were net exporters of soy, forming the basis of a trade surplus for the growing nation. Romania went from producing 199,200 ha of soy in 2007 to 41,400 ha in 2009. They went from a net exporter of soy to importing it from the USA, Argentina and Brazil.  Bt resistant potatoes were now off the table, returning to the high costs and environmental impact of conventional potato cultivation. Almost overnight the country went from positive trade balance to deficit, at least in part due to losing transgenic technology.

What happened in 2007 to change this?   Drought?  Flood?  Vampires?  Other disaster?  No.  Romania joined the European Union and had to abandon agriculture involving transgenic crops to comply with EU mandates.  A country in the process of taking off the training wheels gets an anti-science stick in the spokes.

While these facts were sad, the most surprising comment was Dr. Popescu’s opening comment. She said, “I work for a government lab, so I have to remain neutral on GMO”.  If my doctor said that he had to stay neutral on vaccines, if my high school biology teacher had to stay neutral on evolution, if my history professor had to stay neutral on if the holocaust occurred, I’d be equally blown away.

As a scientist living in a world dominated by evidence, I was amazed that the person reporting the before-and-after impacts of growing GE crops reserved comment on the data she was about to present. It shows the power of the anti-science, anti-biotech forces, and how her synthesis could potential imperil her position as a scientist in her nation.

I certainly trust Dr. Popescu.  It is amazing that a proven scientist in a nation that once benefited from transgenic technology has to watch her words to avoid causing trouble in the EU.  It also is sad that in order to get into the EU clubhouse a nation must check it’s scientific soul at the door.  Shouldn’t science, reason and evidence dictate political decisions?

Maybe someday.

we reject the organic-conventional dichotomy and emphasize that, in order to optimize environmental sustainability, individual tactics must be evaluated for their environmental impact in the context of an integrated approach, and that policy decisions must be based on empirical data and objective risk-benefit analysis, not arbitrary classifications.

The paper was Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans (full text) by Christine Bahlai et al. Long story short, the research showed that some synthetic pesticides were more environmentally benign than some organic pesticides, showing that it’s inaccurate to say that organic pesticides are better for the environment. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.

The paper itself is really great, deserving of its own post (see Organic pesticides aren’t necessarily more sustainable than synthetic by Colby Vorland), but I’d like to talk about the organic-conventional divide. Normally I don’t approve of thoughts in scientific journal articles that aren’t immediately related to the research, too often authors stray into questionable territory. But Christine’s thoughts here are immediately related to her findings, and her results may indicate that big changes are necessary in the way we think about farming.

Separating out “organic” as defined by the USDA may be beneficial in the short term for farmers that have transitioned to certified organic methods who can then charge a premium, but in the long term, the divide is a detriment to farmers, consumers, and the environment. If we really care about farming in a more environmentally friendly fashion, we need an entirely new system.

We all want the same things*:

1. healthy food that is accessible to everyone regardless of location or income
2. farmers that can afford to farm and to pay fair wages to their employees
3. conservation of resources (especially soil!) and protection of ecosystems

We can get those things through three complimentary and often intertwined avenues:

1. demand
2. policy
3. research

Demand driven change seems to be moving along. We see lots about healthy food in popular media, increasing popularity of farmers’ markets, talk of adding cooking classes to public schools, and a push to make school lunches healthier, just to name a few. More could be done, but it is happening. We might have different ideas of what exactly constitutes healthy food, but I don’t think anyone’s arguing that more fruits and veggies is a bad idea. Ok, probably someone is, but let’s just agree to ignore them.

Policy driven change seems to be moving along as well. Michelle Obama is leading the charge with her Let’s Move program that touches many government programs. Kathleen Merrigan is pushing for help for local food systems, even while Tom Vilsack works mostly within the status quo. As demand for healthier food increases, senators and congressmen will be more likely to support policy changes at the federal level, especially if we somehow start electing people with backgrounds other than business. Yes, it would be nice if everything changed faster, but it’s going to take a while to change a system that’s been in place for 40+ years.

With both demand and policy, the important thing is to keep pushing for changes, and over time things will change. Optimistic, simplistic, yes, but true. The alternative is revolution, which would probably suit some people, but is more than a little extreme.

That leaves us with research. Research is what informs both demand and policy – or at least it should be. Research can provide us with information about which methods are preferable to others, such as which pesticides would have the least impact on farm and off farm ecosystems. Research, if properly applied, can help guide demand and policy to improve human and environmental health, among other things.

Here’s the problem, to borrow from the pesticide comparison paper: not enough “empirical data and objective risk-benefit analysis” and too much “arbitrary classification”. When demand and policy are based on arbitrary classifications like “natural is better” without research to back it up, we end up with demand and policy that are ineffective at best. We also end up with unnecessary divisions that cause efforts to be split, even though we all really want the same thing.

Let’s look at organics as defined by the USDA:

…an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity… The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people. (USDA National Organic Standards Board definition, April 1995)

or agriculture that does

…respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. (CFR Regulatory Text, 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart A — Definitions. § 205.2)

Sounds great, right? Except that by separating organic out from the rest of agriculture, we’re implying two things:

1. that non-organic-certified farmers don’t have these goals in mind
2. that they don’t have to.

It probably is true that some conventional** farmers don’t care about their soil, don’t conserve resources, etc. But those aren’t going to be very sucessful farmers if their soil is poor and they have to buy way more fertilizer than their neighbors, for example. If you lined up all of the farmers in the US according to their soil quality, I bet you’d find a bell curve. In each category from bad to great soil, you’d find some conventional and some organic farmers. According to the research, organic methods can be better for soils than conventional methods***, but there is so much variation in how farmers actually apply the methods that a one farm to one farm comparison really doesn’t tell the whole story.

There are many conventional farmers that apply integrated pest management, that use rotations to reduce crop-specific pests, that use legume rotations to help reduce the amount of nitrogen that needs to be applied, that use planting methods that decrease soil compaction, and so on. And there are organic farmers that just do the minimum to keep certified. And a whole range between.

Even if we assume that, on average, organically farmed soils are superior in organic matter, microbial activity, etc, we’re still not saying much. “Certified organic cropland and pasture accounted for about 0.6 percent of U.S. total farmland in 2008″, according to the USDA. When we make regulations for such a very small portion of farms, we’re not actually doing anything at all. Consumers should demand environmentally friendly methods from the other 99.4% of farms and policy should be made that includes all of those farms – and all of it needs to be based on sound research.

Ideally, demand and policy would be based on those methods that have been shown to work. If additional research confirmed that using mineral oil was more harmful to farm ecosystems than one or more synthetic pesticides, then one would hope to see demand and policy encourage use of the insect control strategy that had the least impact instead of arbitrarily choosing the “natural” method over a synthetic. Right now, there’s little if any research driving demand or policy. Instead, we have ideology.

Infighting over whether organic or not-organic is better, can feed the world, blah blah blah, isn’t actually helping anyone. The reality is that some methods used by some organic farmers are superb and some might not be. Some should be widely adopted, and some might even be more harmful their conventional counterparts (see the study I started this post with). Complicate that with the fact that not all farmers use the same methods and trying to decide whether organic is better becomes completely futile.

The research looks at individual methods, not arbitrary classifications – which is  really the only effective way to look at things. What we really need is a system that rewards farmers for environmentally friendly farming practices****. A farmer that uses legume rotations for nitrogen but still needs to use some synthetic N, P, and K  to maintain good soil nutrients should be rewarded or recognized somehow if he uses application methods that have been shown to reduce runoff. A farmer that uses integrated pest management to reduce chemical pesticide application that farmer should be recognized.

Hypothetical label touting E-value of contents.

Perhaps there could be a scoring system where environmentally friendly methods are given a number value and farmers with higher values can seek a higher price from buyers that are interested in such things. I can easily imagine a box of corn flakes labeled “made from corn with E-values of 100 or higher!” Another option might be to revamp the whole subsidy system to focus on farming practices, where farmers could have a financial incentive to choose environmentally friendly practices, epecially in cases where a change from one method to another would have an initial capital cost (like new tilling equipment) or when the change might reduce yields or income.
.

Let’s put aside the petty squabbling and focus on the research that has the potential to guide 100% of farms toward more sustainable methods. Not enough research? Let’s demand better federal funding for relevant projects. Let’s demand policy that helps all farmers and all land, not just some.

So, farmers organic and conventional, advocates of various farming methods, consumers, economists, policy analysts, everyone… What sorts of incentive systems might work? Would you spend a little more for a product that you knew was made with ingredients that were sustainable grown? Would this whole crazy idea be just too expensive to implement? Would the cost be mitigated by the benefits?

Bahlai CA, Xue Y, McCreary CM, Schaafsma AW, & Hallett RH (2010). Choosing organic pesticides over synthetic pesticides may not effectively mitigate environmental risk in soybeans. PloS one, 5 (6) PMID: 20582315

.

* Yes, agribusiness wants something else – money. But I’m talking about people, not corporations here. And if you think organic agribusiness cares any less about money than other companies, you are simply naive.

** I really don’t like the word conventional, but it’s better than saying “non-organic-certified” every time I want to mention farmers that aren’t organic certified.

*** To name one recent study that shows healthier soil under organic methods:  Moeskops B, et al. 2010. Soil microbial communities and activities under intensive organic and conventional vegetable farming in West Java, Indonesia. Applied soil ecology 45(2)112-120. Within the confines of this particular study, organic soils are closer to local forest soils, but I bet there are farms which would show the opposite to be true. As with all studies, we have to be careful to remember that the findings apply within the conditions of the study and may or may not apply elsewhere.

****I’m not advocating a dissolution of the certified organic system. It’s not perfect, but it’s all we’ve got at the moment. I’m just saying we can have a system that actually works to improve all farms, and organic can keep doing whatever its adherents want.

Over the last 15 years, agriculture has been changing technologically at an amazing pace. It is something that is truly fun to look back at and realize where we have come. As a producer of corn, soybeans, wheat, seed corn, and popcorn over many of those years it has truly changed what we are able to do and what we will be able to do in the future.

Equipment technology has created a way for us to be able to be better stewards of our ground and resources. Biotechnology has allowed us to push the food, feed, and fuel production to levels that only a few short years ago, many people would not have thought possible. Plus, we are utilizing fertilizer at a better rate. We are reducing our need for irrigation, in irrigated crop production. We are using fewer and fewer pesticides, which not only allows for a healthier product but also for cleaner natural resources like streams and drinking water.

For the farmer, this new wave of biotechnology, has allowed him to plant sooner and get over more acres faster. It also allows for a crop that can remain in the field in good condition longer. It is also allowing for new “green” technologies to come along with the feedstocks from the field being used for future cellulosic ethanol production and for helping coal fired electric plants to create a cleaner energy as well. All this is possible because of the healthy plants that biotechnology is allowing us to have. A plant that can protect itself, will be stronger then the plant that isn’t. Whether that protection is from in field pests or whether that is from the plant being able to be resistant to certain herbicides, it all helps in the final standability and yieldability of the crop that is planted.

Farmers love to plant biotech corn and soybeans. According to the USDA June 2009 Acreage report, US farmers planted 85% of their corn to biotech hybrids which was up from 80% in 2008. They also planted 91% of their soybean acres to biotech which was down 1% from 2008. Farmers have seen the value of these crops and are willing to plant them.

This doesn’t mean there doesn’t need to be more work done. Seed companies are going to have to realize that even though farmers are willing to plant biotech hybrids and varieties, they will start decreasing biotech acres, especially in “multi-stacked traits”, if they do not maintain an acceptable final yield. At the end of the day, farmers want yield. It is the final measuring stick of what the year was like.

As we move forward, we will need to find the way to feed an ever growing world. With population projections of 9 billion by 2030-2050, biotechnology is going to have to be the key to making sure the world has a plentiful, healthy, affordable food supply. And we, as farmers, will continue to plant it.

Brandon Hunnicutt farms in South Central Nebraska with his dad, brother, and cousin. They raise corn, soybeans and popcorn.  All their corn and soybeans contain some aspect of biotechnology in them, except for the popcorn.  Brandon has been involved with defending biotechnology and promoting throughout the years and currently serves as President of the Nebraska Corn Growers Association.

Dr. Gressel is interesting in his own right, a professor emeritus of plant sciences at Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, and author of ” Genetic Glass Ceilings: Transgenics for Crop Biodiversity”. I can’t wait to find a copy and let you know what he has to say. A preview is available at Google Books. He argues that we need to use biotechnology in order to break the glass ceiling – alluding to the decline in crop yield improvement over the past few years. According to the reviews, he also addresses problems with biotech and ways to overcome them.

At its heart, organic ag is based on biology – understanding biological processes in order to coax food out of the soil. Conventional ag has forgotten things, such as how soil-bacteria interactions can affect soil fertility, how polyculture (or at least rotation) can help prevent disease, or how natural predators can be used to keep pests away. In short, conventional ag is chemistry while organic is biology.

Even though the technology is new, biotech is biology, not chemistry. This is eloquently described by Raoul Adamchak in Tomorrow’s Table. For example, giving plants the means to protect themselves from disease with technologies like RNAi is very different from spraying potentially toxic chemicals, and doing so is fundamentally true to the idea behind organic farming.

Unfortunately, there aren’t many people who are listening. For example, when I brought this up in a Sustainable Agriculture class at Iowa State, the response was:

Organic agriculture is defined by law (unlike other forms of agriculture) and as such, the rules prescribe that transgenic forms cannot be used in organic agriculture.

The rules about what is and is not organic may be defined by law, but they aren’t defined by science. Some of the additives allowed by the organic rules are quite dangerous and don’t follow from the idea of biologically concious agriculture – such as the use of sulfur and copper (see p133-137 of the Google Books preview of The Truth About Organic Gardening).

The line drawn to exclude biotechnology is arbitrary. Included are techniques like chemical and radioactive mutagenesis, forced hybridization across species, grafting to form physically chimeric plants. Excluded are techniques like cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology. There is one distinction I can see: techniques allowed in organic farming have been in use for decades and can generally be done with minimal equipment while techniques excluded from organic farming are new, patentable, require expensive equipment and trained technicians.

It has been suggested that the organic movement (specifically the anti-GM movement) is actually a reflection of anti-capitalism and in some cases anti-technology sentiment. The regulations support this theory, but I think at least some of that can be left in the past. I hope we can all look forward to redefining organic to stay true to its original meaning of biologically based agriculture. Without an integrated farming strategy – orgenic farming – I’m afraid we won’t have much left to eat.

Jonathan Gressel (2009). Orgenic Food Nature Genetics, 41 (2), 137-137 DOI: 10.1038/ng0209-137

The first few chapters provide information: 1 explanation of why bees are so important to agriculture, 2 facinating descriptions of bee life, bee biology, and beekeeping in general, and 3 the first incidences of CCD, including first hand descriptions from beekeepers.

Chapter 4, Whodunit, is where the story starts to get really interesting. Jacobsen carefully explains the dead ends of the investigation (call phones, Bt crops, the rapture, etc) and tells us why none of the various viruses, bacteria, and parasites that afflict bees are likely culprits.

The discussion of Bt crops is surprisingly lucid (if not a tad overdrawn) and contains more than a little foreshadowing for the next chapter: “Why spray crops with a pesticide that washes into the soil and groundwater when you can simply have the plants manufacture it for themselves? Organic farmers have used Bt for years as a natural insecticide. So I can understand Monsanto’s thinking. Then again, I can understand Dr. Frankenstein’s belief that it might be useful to reanimate the dead; it’s in the practice that things get messy.” Jacobsen points out that “lots of CCD cases have been reported in states  [and countries] with no GM crops” and that USDA studies have shown Bt pollen to be completely safe.

Chapter 5, Slow Poison, brings us to a hypothesis that pesticides are the problem, reducing the bees’ ability to defend themselves against disease. Individual pesticides are tested singly for lethality and applied at rates below lethal levels, but they aren’t tested in the combinations that bees experience in the fields. They also aren’t tested long term at non-lethal levels. Low levels of various pesticides, including neonicotinoids (which are a relatively safe synthetic version of nicotine, an organic pesticide) cause nervous system problems in bees. France’s answer has been to ban certain pesticides, but their bees continue to die while bees exposed to the same pesticide (Gaucho) in Argentina are doing just fine.

So, what do we do? In later chapters, Jacobsen offers a few solutions, including a huge switch in farming practices and importing Russian bees, but I’m not satisfied. From bees to babies, it seems obvious that we need to reduce dependance on pesticides in farming. The problem is, we can’t afford it. There is a reason why organic produce costs more. We must find gentle ways to keep yields high.

To me, Jacobsen’s paragraphs on Bt crops and on pesticides combine to a somewhat obvious potential solution – genetic engineering. One of the nice things about GE is that you can target where in the plant a compound (such as Bt or nicotine) is produced. Using the right promoter, we can express a compound in just the leaves or just the roots, whatever part needs to be protected from pests. While some compounds will be transported around the plant, we can realistically produce a GE plant that has very little of the compound in the pollen. With the pesticide safely locked away in the plant parts that need it, the bees can come and go, harvesting pollen without being affected. Instead of demanding a ban on GE, we should demand more intelligent use of the technology.

Of course, genetic engineering alone won’t solve CCD, but neither will banning pesticides. We need a completely fresh look at agriculture. We need a system that rewards farmers for good practices to improve the situation for bees and for the rest of us. For example, if a farmer rotates crops and uses Bt crops properly to reduce insecticide use, allows some weeds to grow to reduce herbicides use, plants borders and hedgerows of wildflowers, uses local bee hives instead of shipping them in, etc – the food can’t be labeled “organic” even though a huge difference has been made for local ecosystems, for the bees, and for the health of the consumer. The farmer won’t be compensated for these efforts which are more time consuming than 100% conventional farming. Without compensation, why bother? It’s far easier to rely on chemicals, and we all need to make a living.

Image of a bee heading toward an almond blossom by pho-tog on flickr, book cover from Jacobsen’s website.

Photo by Yvan leduc via Wikipedia.

There is so much information out there on Colony Collapse Disorder. Wouldn’t it be nice if someone summarized it in one place? Kyle Bailey, undergraduate in biology at Iowa State, has done just that. The following, posted with permission, is an up-to-date review of CCD research. It includes information from a variety of sources, from fact sheets to peer-reviewed journal articles.

Introduction

Honeybees (apis mellifera) are the primary pollinator available to agriculturalists in the United States. This makes them a critical part of US agriculture.  Crops such as “almonds (82% of the world’s supply and 100% dependent on interstate pollinators); apples; cherries; blueberries; broccoli; carrots; cranberries; cucurbits like cucumber, melons, squash, pumpkins, and gourds” (Stankus 2008) are heavily reliant on honey bees for pollination.  Traveling hives provided by commercial apiary services pollinates many of these crops.

A current epidemic, called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), affecting honeybee hives throughout the US threatens the apiarist industry.  In the US during 2006-2007 29% of beekeepers reported some loss to CCD with some losing up to 75% of their stock (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al).  CCD is characterized as a mysterious loss of worker bees in the hive.  There are no corpses to be found as the bees apparently wander far from the hive to die.  The hive generally has sufficient food stores to maintain the population.  The hives also generally still have undeveloped brood stock.  The new brood (as well as the queen) is of course doomed without any adult workers present to care for them and they soon die.  Because the bees travel far from the hive there are no bodies to necropsy and attempt to determine a cause (Stankus 2008).

This paper will explore the US economic and agricultural impacts of pollinator loss, and recent research into the causes of and potential solutions to CCD.

US Economic and Agricultural Impacts

The monoculture nature of agriculture tends to produce large numbers of flowers that all need pollinating simultaneously. A lack of honeybee colonies available to ship and set up for pollinating the variety of crops throughout the US will have a major impact on production.  Dr. Caird Rexroad, an associate administrator of agricultural research for the United States Department of Agriculture, in testimony before the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee states:

“CCD poses a problem for many segments of the agricultural community, particularly the pollination industry and many growers that depend on pollinating services.  In total, bee pollination is responsible for $15 billion in added crop value, particularly for specialty crops such as almonds and other tree nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables.  The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, a need that is projected to grow significantly by 2010.  Due to CCD, the bee industry is facing great difficulty meeting the demand of almond producers.  If researchers are unable to solve the problem and beekeepers are unable to meet demands for this and other crops, agriculture will be significantly impacted.” (2007).

Recent Research on CCD

CCD is far from explained.  There is apparently no single explanatory factor.  There is strong evidence, however, that it is biologically transmitted (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et.al.). It would appear to be a combination of factors.  Most of them well known and others new, emerging, or as yet unknown.  CCD is however strongly associated with hives that have been under stress from any of a number of known stressors (Stankus 2008).  These include mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and insecticides.  The various fungi, and bacteria are not thought to be major contributors to CCD directly.  A major indicator for CCD is, however, hive stress and any infection or infestation could contribute.

There are two mites that are of significant impact to A. mellifera.  They are Varroa destructor and Acarapis woodi. A. woodi is a very small mite that lives in the tracheal tubes of the adult worker honeybee (http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html).  It is also associated with additional bacterial infections (Stankus 2008).  V. destructor is by far the more important mite and is more strongly associated with CCD.  V. destructor is a mite that primarily infects the brood while it is still capped off in the comb.  When out of the comb such as when the colony is over wintering and there is no brood left the mite infests the adult worker bee piercing the exoskeleton on the back and sucking hemolymph (Bowen-Walker, Martin, and Gunn 1996). V. destructor is also associated with additional infections, this time viral. Infestation by V. destructor affects bee size, weight, population, timeliness of emergence, lifespan and even the ability of bees to learn (Stankus 2008).

Viruses affecting honeybees are more diverse.  There are at least 15 serious strains.  Strongly associated with Varroa mite infestation is deformed wing virus (DWV).  DWV is usually spread by the mites to developing larvae who develop small non-functional wings.  The resulting adult can crawl but not fly.  It has also been shown that the learning ability of bees may be affected (Stankus 2008).

A 2007 study looked at samples from 51 separate colonies, all of them mobile. In all 25 hives suffering from CCD they found Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) and they found the virus in only one healthy hive.  This strongly correlates IAPV with CCD (Cox-Foster, Conlan, Holmes, et al.).  The causal relationship of IAPV to CCD is currently under study (Cox-Foster 2008).  Vertical transmission from Queen to offspring has also been shown for a variety of viruses (Chen, Pettis, Collins et al. 2005).

The most common protozoans found in honeybees are cryptosporidian called Nosema apis and a close cousin Nosema ceranae. N. ceranae is a more serious disease and is jumping the species barrier from Asian bees (Apis ceranae) to European bees (Apis mellifera). N. ceranae reduces hive survivability to one in six (Martin-Hernandez, Meana, Prieto, et al. 2007).  Given the recent emergence of N. ceranae and the uncanny similarity in hive survival rates, the prospect of finding a link to CCD seems promising (Stankus 2008).

Certain pesticides in wide use in the US have also been suggested to be players.  Specifically a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids.  The most widely used of these in the US is imidacloprid.  It is used as a seed coat and can show up in plant tissues such as pollen and nectar in low doses.  It is known to be toxic to bees, but when used in this way the bees receive a sub-lethal dose. One of the principal effects of imidacloprid on honeybees is a loss of learning ability (Decourtye, Lacassie, and Pham-Delegue 2003).  Learning ability in bees is considered critical for the hive to continue thriving (Stankus 2008).  The use of neonicotinoid pesticides varies widely by region, but the occurrence of CCD is fairly uniform. The manufacturer of imidacloprid has released a press release strongly denying its product plays any part in CCD and suggesting studies that show this to be true (Bayer CropScience, 2008).

Dr. Cox-Foster, one of the leading researchers in CCD also suggests the unnatural diet bees are subjected to may be a factor.  One day bees can be in a field with nothing but almonds, another day nothing but watermelon, and in between fed an artificial sugar syrup.  This is not the diet bees evolved with and as such may be a stressor.  She also mentioned the practice of frequent hive splitting.  This produces new hives more often than bees would choose to do so on their own.  The last possible factor mentioned is the decrease in genetic diversity.  Beekeepers who have some Africanized bees have not suffered from CCD (Bodnar 2008).

Possible Solutions

There is a study looking at how Africanized bees seem to be resistant to many of the diseases currently stressing European bees (Frazier Tumlinson, Tomasko 2008).  One possibility is to breed resistance into our bees.

There is also the possibility of moving away from our dependence on a single species to do all of our pollinating.  Unfortunately not many other bees are social so keeping them in very large numbers is difficult.  The solitary bees tend to wander away when they perceive their population is too high. One study currently under way has as one of its main goals to “Improve management of bumble bee pollinators through research aimed at identifying factors believed to affect worker pollen foraging and pollination efficiency.” (Delaplane Visscher,Eitzer 2008).  In some areas native pollinators may be able to pick up the slack and provide sufficient pollination (Winfree, Williams, Dushoff, et al. 2007).

Depending on the findings of some current studies, we may simply find that a few changes in our managements of bees could make all the difference.  The careful use of novel miticides, maintaining more diverse food sources such as wild flowers in proximity to the crops we want pollinated, and maintaining a larger portion of the bee population as stationary hives instead of mobile operations that move state to state would all seem to be prudent, easy, and inexpensive first steps to staving off CCD.

Conclusion

CCD is obviously an important disease.  It is currently a major area of study and our government through the USDA is pouring millions of dollars into research projects all over the country.  At this point we are just beginning to understand the possible mitigating factors to CCD and how they may interplay with each other.  The coming few years will likely be hard ones on the apiary and agricultural industries.  Hopefully, solutions will be swift in coming and cheap in implementing.

Works Cited

Bee safety and Colony Collapse Disorder. (2008) Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.press.bayercropscience.com

Bodnar, A. Colony Collapse Disorder (2008) Retrieved November 18, 2008 From http://www.geneticmaize.com/2008/06/colony-collapse-disorder/

Chen, Y. P., Pettis, J. S., Collins, A., Feldlaufer, M. F. (2006). Prevalence and Transmission of Honeybee Viruses. [Electronic version] Applied And Environmental Microbiology,72, 606-611.

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) Colony Collapse Disorder – Determination Of Role Of Pathogens In Unique-Colony Losses Of Honey Bees And Funding Of Workshop On Ccd Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=15893&format=WEBLINK

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) A New Collaboration To Understand African Bee Biology, Ecology, And Management As A Key To Sustaining Honey Bee Health In The U.S. [Electronic version] Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=23624&format=WEBLINK

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (2008) SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS AFFECTING HEALTH OF MANAGED BEES [Electronic version] Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=8439&format=WEBLINK

Cox-Foster, D.L.,Conlan, S., Holmes, E.C., Palacios, G., Evans, J.D., Moran N.A. (2008). A Metagenomic Survey of Microbes in Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder. [Electronic version] Science 318, 283-287

Decourtye, A., Lacassie, E., Pham-Dele`gue M. (2003) Learning performances of honeybees (Apis mellifera L) are differentially affected by imidacloprid according to the season. [Electronic version] Pest Management Science 59, 269-278

Martı´n-Herna´ndez, R., Meana, A., Prieto, L.,  Salvador, A. M., Garrido-Bailo´n, E., Higes M. (2007). Outcome of Colonization of Apis mellifera by Nosema ceranae. [Electronic version] 73(20), 6331-6338.

P. L. BOWEN-WALKER, S. J. MARTIN, A. GUNN (1996). Preferential distribution of the parasitic mite, Varroa jacobsoni Oud. on overwintering honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) workers and changes in the level of parasitism.[Electonic version]  Parasitology, 114, 151-157

Stankus, T. (2008).  A Review and Bibliography of the Literature of Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Poorly Understood Epidemic that Clearly Threatens the Successful Pollination of Billions of Dollars of Crops in America. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information. [Electronic version] 9(2), 115-143.

Subcommittee On Horticulture And Organic Agriculture Of The Committee On Agriculture House Of Representatives (1997) Review Colony Collapse Disorder In Honey Bee Colonies Across The United States (36-465 PDF) Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

“Tracheal Mites” Tarsonemidae. (n.d.) Retrieved November 16, 2008, from http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov/acari/frames/beemites.html

Winfree, R., Williams, N., Dushoff, J., Kremen, C. (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. [Electronic version] Ecology, 10, 1105-1113

The course includes a too brief history of organic farming that focuses overmuch on the institute itself. I think the not-so-subtle demonization of Norm Borlaug‘s work is inappropriate, especially considering that his efforts have saved more lives than anything else in history. Yes, some of the fertilizers and pesticides used today do have origins in the chemical industry of WWII and Vietnam, but I think it’s rather a stretch to say that the authors of the Green Revolution intended to hurt people. They just wanted to produce more food, and they did. No one considered the effects of these new farming methods (among other things) on the environment until Rachel Carson realized changes happening around her. We face the challenge of continuing high yields while also protecting the environment. Organic is one answer, but it’s not the only one.

.

The Rodale Institute’s first definition of organic farming is: “Minimal use of external, off-farm inputs coupled with the exclusion of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers as well as growth hormones and antibiotics for livestock”. The key word here is synthetic – because quite a few pesticides are used in organic farming, although they are required to be from natural sources unless there is no other alternative (see The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances). It’s also good that they clarify: “Organic farming is not simply the substitution of approved input materials. It is the replacement of a treatment approach with a process approach to create a balanced system of plant and animal interactions.”

.

One idea left out of the course is that many of the organic ideals can be integrated into conventional farming. I think this is a serious oversight, as small changes made by many farms (even conventional ones) can add up quickly for the environment. An example: “Organic farmers break pest and disease cycles by interspersing crop plots and by not planting the same crop year after year on the same piece of land but instead rotating them [original emphasis].” Conventional farmers obviously can and do rotate their crops, although they might not realize the many benefits. On the same page, the course advocates tilling as weed control, even though more than enough research has shown that tilling is bad for the soil and releases greenhouse gasses.

.

A link to the picture heavy Organic Center review Nutritional Superiority of Organic Foods is included in the course as evidence of why organic is better. The review includes some good information, but I think should be taken with a grain of salt. As I’ve said before on this blog – we have to consider that some sources have an agenda that may color how they collect and present information. This review, however, seems to be well researched, with only high-quality (as defined by the reviewers) articles selected for inclusion. EDIT: There seems to be more to this story, I’ll post on it as soon as I can. In the mean time, check out the rebuttal by Dr. Joseph Rosen, “emeritus professor of food science at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health”. Both of these reports are funded by organizations that some say have a vested interest in the results – which isn’t very helpful for those of us who want to find the truth.

.

The rest of the course gets a little deeper into what organic farming actually is in practice, but I get the feeling that it’s not enough. If I was a farmer considering going organic, I’d want more cost-benefit analysis, less vague tree-hugging. I’ll let you finish the rest of the course yourself, or you can comment with questions.

Last year, the rice crop in Arkansas yielded a record 160 bushels an acre. This year, experts there say, 150 bushels will be an achievement.

“There’s no doubt about it, we’re not going to have the rice to export,” said Carl Frein of Farmers Marketing Service in Brinkley, Ark. “Poor countries like Haiti, I don’t know what they’re going to do.”

Randy Kron (photo from NY Times) is an Indiana corn and soy farmer who won’t be able to plant this year. The article follows his story of fields that are too wet to plant. He concludes “I don’t know if this is the worst year we’ve ever had, but it’s moving up the list pretty quick.”
A lot of the comments on the post are typical: too many people don’t research or think before typing. One, though, had a different perspective. I really like reading what real farmers think, especially because they tend to be more optimistic and solution oriented than the doom and gloom Malthusians. One commenter who farms less than 80 miles from the farm in the article writes:

First, the use of corn for ethanol has had almost NO impact on rising food costs. Studies by USDA, by Informa Economics, and by others have proven this. Ethanol has impacted overall food cost increases by less than 3%. Secondly, corn-based ethanol is by no means THE answer to energy problems, bit is AN answer. It’s the most (really, only) biofuels alternative that’s practical right now. Cellulosic ethanol is still unproven, and sugarcane ethanol generates huge amounts of essentailly toxic waste. In contrast, 1/3 of the corn used for ethanol actually remains after processing; this is a protein-rich, very palatable livestock feed especially well-suited for poultry and cattle (and which can be used in small amounts for hogs). Secondly, corn ethanol is energy positive. New processes, as well as dramatically increased corn yields, are responsible for this. ON our farm, we last year produced enough corn to make 301,000 gallons of ethanol AND 35,000 bushels of distillers grains while only using 1,500 gallons of petroleum inputs. (Granted, this does not include energy used to distill the ethanol – but the point remains, it’s still a net-positive process. And keep in mind, this is fuel grown and made in the United STates, where 100% of the money stays here, and does not go to support corrupt regimes in Saudi or Nigeria or wherever…)

If you want to find the true sources of rising food prices, look to China, first, where a huge population now has the means and the desire to not starve. Or at least starve less. China’s use of corn, soybeans and other grain crops is by far the largest contributor to rising prices. 1A is India, where the same phenomenon is taking place. Second, energy costs. Third, widespread drought (esp in Australia), which hammered the world wheat supplies over the last few years. The last place to be putting blame is on bioenergy policies or US farm policy; to the contrary, we American farmers are consistently increasing our productivity and exporting more than every before to feed the world.

Thanks to Sue Jarnagin, Prof of Sociology at ISU, for finding the NY Times article.

Dr. Diana Cox Foster of Penn State spoke at Iowa State about her work with CCD. She has been studying bees for 20 years and heads a diverse team of researchers working to solve the mystery. She said that there there are quite a few “theories” that her team disagrees with.

In particular, she said that CCD is not caused by the rapture or the Russians. She puts cell phones and genetically engineered crops in the same category, choosing instead to focus on legitimate leads. She says that there are many reasons why their group is not looking into these as possible causes, but one reason sticks out: some Amish and organic beekeepers whose hives are isolated from genetically engineered crops, many pesticides, and cell phones in the case of the Amish have experienced CCD, while some conventional beekeepers have not.

In other words, there isn’t a common thread connecting colonies that have collapsed.

Despite the fact that scientists like Dr. Cox Foster have spoken on the lack of legitimacy of these theories, people continue to write about them, such as this example from the always creative Global Research. I won’t pick the article apart due to time constraints, but wanted to show the range of views. A lot of mainstream articles have less extreme views, but few if any make an effort to debunk the incorrect theories. Instead, they reinforce them! Karl over at Inoculated Mind has a nice post summarizing some issues with the cell phone and GMO theories that’s over a year old. If only the reporters would research as he did.

There is abundant evidence that the Bt protein Cry1Ab doesn’t affect non-target insects. A meta-analysis from Jan 2008 of 25 independent studies found “that Bt Cry proteins used in genetically modified crops commercialized for control of lepidopteran and coleopteran pests do not negatively affect the survival of either honey bee larvae or adults in laboratory settings.” A meta-analysis from May 2008 of a public database found no significant effect on type or number of arthropods in Bt and non-Bt crops. They did find, as have many others, that various types of insecticides decreases the type and number of arthropods.

A quick lit search did come up with a June 2008 study that showed decreased learning ability in bees that were force fed syrup containing very high concentrations of Bt that are not found in the field. This data might indicate the need for more research on bee physiology, but doesn’t mean that Bt isn’t safe for bees in the field.

Now that we know what it’s not, I’ll share with you what Dr. Cox Foster thinks are the most likely causes and solutions…

An almond grove via Klausesbees (which incidentally may be the same one that Dr. Foster used in her presentation).

First is simple stress. When they are working on a specific crop, bees don’t have many dining options. Instead of having wildflowers or even another crop such as strawberries under the almond trees, the grove is a virtual pollen desert when the trees aren’t in bloom. Other crops used to be grown with hedgerows separating smaller farms, but these have been all but eliminated as farms are consolidated. This type of agriculture is what led to bees being trucked across the country to keep up with crop flowering.

Bees did not evolve in the conditions of being moved from state to state, feeding on one type of plant one day to something entirely different the next. A related problem could be the sugar and corn syrups that bees are fed before the crops bloom, just because bees haven’t evolved with this as a food source. The stress of the move and of the ever changing food sources might be too much to bear. The solution to this would be to have areas set aside for wildflowers that would both encourage natural bee hives and serve as a food source to local cultivated bee colonies when the local crops are out of season.

Second is a combination of mites, viruses, and other diseases. Dr. Cox Foster and her associates have sequenced DNA samples from bee hives and found a variety of surprising things, including Aspergillis fungus and the parasite Leishmania. Israeli virus (IAPV) correctly predicted collapsed hives more than any other factor. The virus is transmitted by Verroa mites (shown here in a photo from the USDA ARS). When bees are stressed, they are especially susceptible to mites which in turn makes them susceptible to disease. Royal jelly from China, used to feed prospective queen bees, was also found to contain IAPV.

Also contributing to susceptibility is the decrease in genetic diversity among bee hives. One possible solution to the problem is breeding or engineering resistant bees. For example, Arizona beekeepers who have Africanized bees haven’t experienced CCD. Another solution is to develop “biocides” which would be like a medicine to help the bees fight off mites and disease. Vaccines aren’t an option because bees don’t have an adaptive immune system. Beekeepers who irradiate box components before placing a hive inside have had some success, because irradiation kills mites and bacteria.

Third is pesticides, less likely, but still under consideration. Researchers found copious residues of miticides (which some beekeepers apply to bees or to boxes) and other pesticides in the bee wax that beekeepers buy and place in new hives. Use of formic acid, considered a natural substance because it is produced by some species of ants, is widespread and may play a role in increasing bee stress and susceptibility to disease. Bees are affected by a wide range of insecticides, which obviously could play a role. However, there is no common pesticide reside in colonies that experience CCD.

Another hive related possibility is a little more difficult to understand and quantify. Some commercial beekeepers try to get a lot out of their hives. One practice that Dr. Cox Foster questions is too-frequent hive “splitting” because it leads to bee stress. I was also able to find some ruminations on the net that the large cell size used by commercial beekeepers to encourage bee growth may also encourage mite infestations, but couldn’t find any actual data on the subject (anyone need a summer project?).

After her presentation, Dr. Cox Foster shared these links that include more information and info on how individuals can help: The Pollinator Partnership, Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and Extension Consortium, and The Status of Pollinators in North America. Another source is the USDA Agricultural Research Service, who has multiple fact sheets, including Colony Collapse Disorder: A Complex Buzz.

One last thing I’d like to share before I end this post – bees are not the only pollinators out there. Of course some aspects of agriculture would have to change if we were no longer able to cart bees across the country, but it wouldn’t be the end of agriculture as some people have said. A Slate article from 2007 called Bee Not Afraid explains. Much of the information in the article matches things that Dr. Cox Foster said in the course of her lecture and in the Q&A session that followed.