The economic crisis has contributed to a glut of bees in California. That raises questions about whether a supposed global pollination crisis is real

Why not take this article one step farther, why is fear reported more than facts? Thanks for this factual follow-up

Monoculture makes it also difficult to keep bees because it means that when almonds aren't providing honey there will be a shortage of food for the bees. So you may need to feed them sugar or to import them from far away.

In the 1960s my family opprated a large cow/calf ranch in B.C. Canada. It was normal for most Ranchers to lose a number of cows or calfs durring calfing. It was felt that the cows did not get a complete food from just hay alone as winter feed. What we did was introduce a mineral supplement: the cows ate it like it was candy. We never lost another animal.

It would seem giving the bees the same treatment, the results are the same. Cheap is, is as cheap does; so the saying goes.

This is the key right here:

"the crop is so large and intensively grown these days that it has greatly surpassed the region’s inherent ability to supply pollinators. Decades ago, when there were fewer almonds, farmers could rely on pollination just from the beekeepers who live in the Central Valley."

The whole problem would be solved if we just went back to a balanced, regional way of producing our food which we may have to do soon anyway because of peak oil and the global warming effects of long range transportation of food and other goods.

If we don't regroup and simplify we will see more and more of this too-much-here and not-enough-there kind of imbalance. All these studies just look at small slices of the pie and end up sounding like the blind men describing the elephant. There is a natural balance. Hopefully we're smart enough to find it.

The idea the there is a "monoculture" of almond growing in California's Central Valley is pure poppycock. Less than 2.3% of the Central Valley's land is devoted to growing almonds and that land is scattered over at least 10 counties spanning a north-south distance of more than 300 miles. For a more complete discussion of Central Valley almond growing and CCD, see http://tinyurl.com/9ae82n.

I think this article dismiss too quickly the role of new pesticides in CCD: an italian researcher found that some of the new nicotinoids pesticide have deadly unexpected consequences on bees populations. To prevent contact between the bees and the nicotinoids pesticides european law requires that only the seeds should be treated with such chemicals and not the actual plants. However, the research shows that even though the plants are not directly treated they still preserve their deadly potential toward bees that might enter in contact with them or even through their dew droplets.find the article here:http://www.farminguk.com/news/Bees-killed-by-Neo-nicotinoids-in-expressed-Maize-sap10986.asp

to Goodwordswan:

"The whole problem would be solved if we just went back to a balanced, regional way of producing our food..."

Well, just as a starter, northern locales are going to have a hard time getting their fruits and vegetables in the middle of winter on that plan. But the problem is easily generalized as any crop has its ideal crowing environment and not all locales can meet them. That means that crops are going to be diversified across the planet. Alternatively, you can artificially create environments through massive irrigation systems or hothouse environments, or whatever, but why would you want to do that when you can spend your limited resources more efficiently otherwise?

Global trade is good thing exactly for these reasons. It can create problems, clearly, and if we don't act intelligently enough they might become catastrophic, but that is up to us. If you create your systems within the boundaries of your ability to control them, then, barring major external catastophes, things will work out.

Clearly, your systems must be robust enough to handle a fair variance in conditions, and if they aren't then you have failed to create your systems correctly and you will eventually have to eat your own stupidity - like our current crowd of global bankers. But that failure doesn't mean that Regional banks are the way to go. It just means the we have to be more intelligent and more realistic when we evaluate our systems; which is a question of proper design and management.

Failure is something to learn from, not something to run and hide in a corner over.

Sounds like another crisis made up from runaway environmentalist. And what part of the UN payment for the study is paid for by the US?

This article is about commercial honeybees, but other bees, especially native bumblebees have been hit hard by a population crash. I like to photograph bees, so I'm more sensitive to changes in their population and type, and this past year, here in Minnesota, both in the south, where I am for 9 months, and in the north, where I am during the summer, bumblebee populations crashed. I would say it was a 90% die off. The population started recovering modestly in early fall, so I'm anxiously awaiting to see what the coming growing season will bring.

It sure seems like a virus is the cause, since the die-off was across the board and in geographically separate regions with very different ecosystems. (My part of southern Minnesota is oak savanna in zone 4; my home in northern Minnesota is boreal forest in zone 2.)

So bees do better on a balanced diet - don't we all. There have been recent reports that honey produced in cities (in hives kept on rooftops) is richer and better tasting because the urban gardens provide the bees with much richer and more varied sources of food.

The answer (if bee numbers really are falling - which could be serious) seems to be to encourage more varied wild habitat on field margins (and on diversity islands within big fields).

Owners of golf course and private gardens could also help by seeding their sterile, mono-culture lawns with red clover, creeping buttercup, daisies, dandelions and other wild flowers (apparently the bees love them for their pollen and they look pretty too).

Some comments are critical of and even sneer at the UN study that identified a worldwide scarcity of bees. In defense of the UN, I would remind them that sometimes the UN predicts world wide gluts of things. For example:

United Nations University news release October 11, 2005 -- Environmental refugees to top 50 million in 5 years.

Now that's a glut, but updated predictions made in 2009 are even gluttier:

A top United Nations University expert estimates that since there have been hardly any environmental refugees so far, this means the world can expect approximately 50 million environmental refugees over the next 10 months - equivalent, on average, to 5 million per month.

Approximately 50 million environmental refugees are expected to appear very soon in neighbourhoods around the world!!!

Take that ye doubters of the UN who make fun of its relationship with bees!!!

We manage between 100 and 150 colonies of honeybees during the year. Before and during October 2006, honeybees were dying. We lost half of our colonies and so did every beekeeper we know. Some lost 100%. It was happening every where it seemed. In April 2007, Scientists and some very experienced beekeepers came together to do the much-needed research on CCD, including many other problems which face honeybees. Because of the continuous research on honeybees, Scientists have discovered quite a lot and continue to do so. Following are some important discoveries since the first meeting in April 2007:
1. Before October 2006, Honeybees suffered from a poor diet and were not being nourished correctly during their "over-wintering" period; 2. They were (and still are) suffering from Varroa mites; 3. A new strain of the virus, Nosema, "Nosema Ceranae" was discovered; and 4. Weather conditions (either too warm and dry or too cold and wet)all played a role. There are other (possible) problems associated with the decline, such as pesticide use, which is never a good thing, and another virus, Israeli Acute Parasite Virus (IAPV). Thanks to the research done so far, we have done all that was suggested to help strengthen our colonies at our Apiary and have learned what to do for new colonies as well.
Our honeybee colonies have been the strongest we've seen since before October 2006. When we learned our bees suffered from a different type of Nosema and treated them accordingly, the treatment actually improved bee health almost 100%. In addition, Scientists have developed a "feed" for the bees to eat during their "hybernation" period or "over-wintering", which generally occurs during the winter when nectar flows stop and honeybees cannot forage easily due to cold and inclimate weather. Generally, this feed is used twice a year and all treatments are contingent upon where colonies are located in the world or country. Controls used for Varroa Mites are seen in a "different light" nowadays and cannot be over-used or abused. We have found that using the least invasive procedure is all that is needed to help keep mite populations down. Since our honeybee colonies are healthier, stronger, and more vibrant, they are better-equipped to control varroa mites. The bottom-line is this: Depending on where honeybee colonies are placed in the country or in the world, that is, where an apiary is located, and depending upon the tenacity of the beekeeper, whether he or she does the job of beekeeping correctly, that is, in a timely manner, honeybees can do better and can withstand much. These days, when honeybee colonies fail, it seems as though it is almost always due to them not being maintained in a consistent manner using the correct remedies and knowing when and what to do for the many needs of the bees.
Since what I call "The Wake-up Call" was made back in October 2006, much has changed where beekeeping is concerned. It has become a much tougher agricultural job and demands a lot of knowledge and understanding, time, and money. Some may not agree with my observation when they read my words, but I believe that "Actions Speak Louder Than Words", and in our case, the mere sight ("Actions") of our honeybees today showing health and vitality ("Speaks") volumes. It means, to me, that our tenacity and willingness to work harder has helped to keep our honeybees healthy. We don't take all of the credit, however. The Scientists and beekeepers who worked tirelessly then and still do today, have given us the necessary information we need to care for honeybees today. So, it isn't up to any committee or group or "nation", it is up to those individuals who understand honeybees and who never stop learning about their needs and their biology.

When we see bees flying all over the garden, collecting the honey from the flowers in spring, we recognize the comig of the new spring. Bees are the messngers of love between flowers, collectors of honey, the guards of mother nature. But recently whenever we heard the news of the possibility of extinction of bees from the surface of earth such as colony collapse disorder, we knew our species' days on the earth are numbered. We should do our utmost to protcet this valuable species from the extinction.

The quotes reported as coming from Prof Ratniecks smack to me of voodoo science; the misleading statement that the glut of honey bees is due to increase colony numbers falls when the economic facts are scrutinised; the so-called glut of honey bees is not due to colony numbers increasing the cruel fact is that between September 2007 and 2008; the some 2.44 million bee colonies in the USA fell by 36% due to colony demise. Bee colonie are still dyingin large numbers according to reports by beekeeepers on the ground. To make light of the colony losses by creative bookkeeping is not quite cricket. Also the throw away statement by the prof - without due scientific proof that colony demise is certainly not ascribable to GM crops or pesticides when research in Europe has established that the tissue of bees from dead colonies indicate a mind numbing number of chemicals in the bee which should not be there. His statement that there is no evidence to show that colonies of wild bees are collapsing any more frequently than they used to - begs the question "When was the last time the prof left the security of his ivory tower"? The demise of wild colonies due to the ravages of Varroa are well documeneted and eminently understood by beekeepers on the ground - Varroa infestion excacerbated by exposure to the proliferation of agro chemicals cannot be ruled out. Also Jaboury Ghazoul's comment that it is the rarer Bombus races which are mostly affected is a fallacy Bombus species have been sytematically decimated year on year by the abuse of agrochemicals which have reduced the general population of Bombus to the levels which now require the mass movement of thousands of bee colonies to perform the job that Bombus did effortlessly in its daily round. What planet is the commentator on, with the statement that the losss of butterflies, moths, bird, bats etc is primarily due a decline in bio diversity - when it is an accepted Fact among intelligent observers that pesticides are a major cause of the losses. Has no-one in the erudite scientific team contributing to "The bees are back in Town" article never read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring"? There is a lot of innuendo and bias in this piece that does not really bear scrutiny.

Sceptic 1

I have just watched The Happening, and it was mentioned there, that the bees disappear across america. That was scary. I'm glad to know NOW the bees are in surplus.