Calling all light warriors - the Bees need you!

[william r sanford72]

Retraction by corruption

A new peer-reviewed paper analyzes the 2012 Séralini study and the furore it caused

With the publication of the Monsanto Papers in August 2017, new light was shed on the much-publicised retraction of a 2012 study by a primarily French team led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini.

The study had found serious harm to the health of laboratory rats from consumption of two of Monsanto’s products, the GM maize NK603 and the herbicide Roundup, which the maize is engineered to tolerate, fed at environmentally relevant doses. The new paper reviews the history of the retraction and describes how it was engineered by Monsanto with the apparent collusion of the the editor-in-chief of the journal.

A newly published paper by Dr Eva Novotny, "Retraction by corruption: the 2012 Séralini paper", describes the rat feeding trial by the Séralini team and the previously published trial by Monsanto scientists. The latter had concluded that the GM maize is “safe and nutritious”, but did not investigate the effects of Roundup and was too short to examine long-term effects – only 90 days compared with the two-year period of the Seralini study.

Because the results of the Séralini study brought into question the safety of all GM crops (because they are not tested in long-term feeding studies), and also the safety of Monsanto’s widely-used herbicide Roundup, Monsanto’s future and the future of GM crops in general were suddenly in jeopardy. Publication of the Séralini paper therefore caused a hailstorm of criticism which ignored the possibility that these products were harming the health of people or animals that consumed the maize or traces of the herbicide on food crops.

The new paper begins with a description of the earlier paper by Monsanto scientists, highlighting what Dr Novotny sees as the shortcomings of the design and comparing it with the Séralini paper. She states that despite several relative strengths of Séralini’s study, critics denounced it severely, claiming that he used the ‘wrong’ strain of rat and not enough rats per group (only 10) – even though these aspects were essentially the same as in the Monsanto study.

Although Monsanto had 20 rats per group, only 10 animals from each group were used in the analysis of blood and urine; and no explanation was given of the method of selection. This left open the possibility that the healthiest rats were selected from groups fed the GM maize and the unhealthiest were chosen from the control group – thus minimizing any differences between the treatment and control groups.

At issue here is the length of time that the two studies lasted. For a long-term two-year study such as Séralini's, some scientists argue that more rats are needed than in a 90-day subchronic study such as Monsanto's. The aim in using more rats is so that the age-related diseases that naturally occur in older rats do not get confused with the effects of the substance under test. Nevertheless, standard OECD long-term toxicity protocols, while they recommend using 20 rats per sex per group, only require 10 per sex per group to be analysed for blood and urine chemistry – the same number as Séralini used and analysed. Thus the Séralini study is comparable to these OECD protocols with regard to numbers of rats analysed.

Dr Novotny states that criticisms of the Séralini study were largely based on the incorrect assumption that it was a carcinogenicity study, although the paper was entitled “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. In addition, the authors stated in their introduction that they had no reason or intention to carry out a carcinogenicity study.

The significance of the distinction between a carcinogenicity study and a toxicity study is that investigation of carcinogenicity requires at least 50 rats per group, to avoid a ‘false negative’, i.e. failing to spot instances of a rare occurrence. But the statistician Paul Deheuvels countered that the very fact that increases in tumours were seen in the Séralini experiment in groups of only 10 animals makes it probable that the effect is real.

Whichever side of the argument one falls on regarding numbers of rats, the necessity to report tumours in toxicity studies is not in doubt. Standards set by the OECD for toxicity studies require the development of tumours to be reported. In this respect, it would have been remiss of Séralini's team to have kept quiet about the tumours.

The Monsanto study showed statistically significant differences between the GM-fed rats and the controls, but Dr Novotny explains that these were dismissed as being “not biologically meaningful” — a scientifically invalid assumption because no evidence was presented to back it up. The death of one rat was also confidently dismissed as not being related to the diet, even though the cause of death could not be ascertained.

In comparing Monsanto's study with Séralini's, Dr Novotny argues that Monsanto's study design falls short. For example, the base diet used by Monsanto, including that of the control rats, was almost certain to have included a large proportion of other GMOs. Seralini’s team, on the other hand, grew their feed especially and tested their base diet for GMOs – finding none.

Yet despite these factors, all criticism fell upon Séralini's study, which found harm from the GM maize and Roundup, and no criticism was raised against Monsanto's study, which declared the GM maize to be safe and nutritious.

Among those who dismissed Séralini's results were the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). However, some EFSA experts have ties to the the GM industry and the agency was essentially defending its own previous opinion that the GMO tested was safe.

Dr Novotny recounts that one important critic, who consulted with Monsanto as to what to say by way of denunciation, was Prof Richard Goodman, who was then made associate editor for biotechnology by the editor-in-chief of the journal that had published both the Monsanto and Séralini papers. Unusually, a second peer review of the Séralini study was undertaken, with (again unusually) the evidence of the raw data. Nothing amiss could be discovered; but, 14 months after the Seralini paper first appeared online in the journal, the editor-in-chief, A. Wallace Hayes, retracted the paper on the sole grounds of its being “inconclusive”.

This is a unique and unrecognised reason for the retraction of a scientific paper. Dr Novotny counters that most scientific papers must be considered inconclusive. The retraction led to another round of reprisals, this time from independent scientists who pointed out the unfair treatment of papers finding harm from GM products in comparison with those finding safety. Eventually the paper was republished by another journal.

Later research

Since the republication of the Séralini study, subsequent developments include a research finding that most of the standard rodent diets tested that are used as the basis for the feed given to rats in laboratory trials are contaminated with pesticides and unlabelled GMOs. This contamination casts doubt on the reliability of all previous studies that used these diets yet failed to control for these elements. Other studies support aspects of Seralini’s work, including a molecular analysis of the body tissues of the rats fed the lowest dose of Roundup, which showed that they suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Monsanto orchestrated retraction

Dr Novotny recounts that the manner in which the retraction of the Séralini paper was brought about became clear when Monsanto’s internal emails, memos and other documents were released for publication by the judge in a legal case charging Monsanto with causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in people using Roundup.

The disclosure was made after Monsanto failed to take the necessary measures to protect this material. Emails reveal how Monsanto was careful to remain undercover while urging pro-GM scientists to write to the journal to denounce the Séralini study. The journal’s editor-in-chief, who held a paid consultancy agreement with Monsanto, appears to have actively colluded with Monsanto and even encouraged Monsanto scientists to volunteer as reviewers for the second peer review. He must have known they would fiercely attack any research casting doubt on the safety of their lucrative products. Who the actual peer reviewers were has not been revealed.

Dr Novotny's account of the events surrounding the Séralini study reveals the depths of deception and malpractice to which some scientists and corporations will resort in order to protect their products, even when they know or suspect that those products are harming the public. The journal that retracted the study, Food and Chemical Toxicology, no longer has Goodman and Hayes in place on its editorial board, but its publisher Elsevier should publish an apology to the Seralini team for its journal's role in the affair and the resulting damage to the reputations of the scientists involved.

The full paper can be accessed online at http://www.seralini.fr under "Research Papers on GMOs".

The direct link is..http://www.seralini.fr/wp-content/up...retraction.pdf

http://www.gmwatch.org/

https://mailchi.mp/381042619d00/retr...n?e=eb54924245

[william r sanford72]

Species shifts in the honey bee microbiome differ with age and hive role
July 3, 2018 by Kim Kaplan, Agricultural Research Service

The makeup of microbial species—the microbiome—in a honey bee queen's gut changes slowly as she ages, while a worker bee's microbiome changes much more rapidly, according to a new study published by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists.

Learning the details of the honey bee gut microbiome is offering potential for a whole new set of tools for managing honey bee colonies, explained ARS microbial ecologist Kirk E. Anderson at the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center in Tucson, Arizona.

"We established the close connection of the makeup of the honey bee microbiome with the physiology of aging and stress. Our results provide a roadmap to improving colony health through improving queen rearing, nutrition and other management practices," he explained.

Honey bee queens, which lay all of the eggs in a hive, commonly last about three years in managed colonies before beekeepers replace them as reproduction slows. But in recent years, queens have been failing more quickly. This is a factor in higher colony losses reported during the past 12 years and has increased beekeepers' costs and labor. Queens currently cost about $25 each

The honey bee gut microbiome plays a significant role in metabolism, development and growth, and immune system function and protection against pathogens. Five to seven bacterial species groups usually make up the vast majority of a honey bee's core microbiome from among a common list of 10-12 species groups. The exact mix depends on a honey bee's age and function in the hive.

Anderson and ARS molecular biologist Vincent Ricigliano found that as a queen ages, in her gut microbiome, the levels of two bacterial species groups slowly increase: Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, both known for providing probiotic benefits in mammals including humans. At the same time, her microbiome has decreased levels of Proteobacteria species, which are often associated with unhealthy microbial imbalances.

The rate of this shift is associated more with a queen's biological age than her chronological age. Queens age biologically at different rates depending on their colony's exposure to a variety of environmental stresses, which can include available nutrition and exposure to temperature extremes.

Interestingly, during this study, the researchers discovered a new potentially queen-specific pathogen not detected in any adult worker bees—Delftia bacteria (in the order Burkholderiales). The occurrence of Delftia in the queen's mouth and gut rose or fell opposite to the levels of bacteria considered beneficial. This suggests Delftia may play a part in early queen mortality, according to Anderson.

In comparison, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium levels dropped, and the number of Proteobacteria went up as worker bees aged. Workers' microbiomes appear to change in a highly predictable fashion, especially with age. This may mean early shifts in worker microbiota could be used as a warning indicator for colony dwindling and/or failure.

Applying this new information to enhancing honey bees' microbiome may represent a new strategy to slow their aging or to combat physiological stress.

In addition, as understanding of the honey bee's relatively straightforward microbiome increases, the ARS researchers are hopeful that bees may offer an excellent model in which to study the much more complex microbiome of other species including humans.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-specie...biome.html#jCp

Explore further:https://phys.org/news/2015-03-enviro...ueen-bees.html

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-specie...icrobiome.html

[william r sanford72]

How To Introduce A Queen At Night

Doing a little work for dad on this one. I don't explain in incredible detail with charts and pictures and such, which really seems to stump some people, but if you pay attention you'll learn how to introduce a queen at night.

Step one: Put her on the landing board.
Step two: See step one.

The red light has nothing to do with introducing the queen it just makes night time beekeeping much less painful. Bees can't see the red light. This was an LED head lamp.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iqv_GAx0P84

[william r sanford72]

Worker bees select royal (sub)family members, not their own supersisters, to be new queens
Queens also found to mate with many more drones than previously thought

Date:
July 11, 2018

Source:
PLOS

Summary:
When honey bees need a new emergency queen, they forego the chance to promote members of their own worker subfamilies, opting instead to nurture larvae of 'royal' subfamilies, according to a new study.

When honey bees need a new emergency queen, they forego the chance to promote members of their own worker subfamilies, opting instead to nurture larvae of "royal" subfamilies, according to a study published July 11 in the open-access journal PLOS Biology by James Withrow and David Tarpy of North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

When a queen suddenly dies, workers must select a group of larvae to raise as emergency queens, so the question arises whether workers tend to select larvae of their own subfamily over those of others, thus promoting their own genes at the expense of those from other subfamilies.

Here, the authors examined DNA from an average of 92 workers and 85 emergency queens from 6 different colonies. They found that the number of subfamilies per colony ranged from 34 to 77, vastly outnumbering previous estimates. By comparing the DNA of the emergency queens to that of the colony's subfamilies, they found that the majority of emergency queens were raised from subfamilies with very few members, many of which are so rare that they are mostly undetected in typical colony sampling of workers. Thus the authors argued, workers chose members of other "royal" subfamilies over their own "supersisters" to become new queens.

The characteristics that distinguish these lucky larvae from their hive mates are still unknown, as are many of the factors in play that override a possible "selfish gene" drive that might otherwise reward choosing one's own family members for the royal treatment. "While many of the specific details and mechanisms are still to be determined," Withrow said, "at this point we may safely conclude that, while inclusive fitness for nepotism may favor the individual level during emergency queen rearing, that advantage is profoundly overridden by opposing selective forces acting at multiple levels favoring cooperation and altruism."

The study strengthens the evidence that "the good of the hive" overpowers the narrow genetically selfish interests of individual workers.

Withrow adds: "While we already knew that honey bee queens mate with a large number of drones to bring genetic diversity into their colonies, this study suggests that many of a queen's mates are fathering only a tiny fraction of her total offspring. But workers are preferentially selecting members of these cryptic subfamilies for rearing into new queens."

Journal Reference:
James M. Withrow, David R. Tarpy. Cryptic “royal” subfamilies in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (7): e0199124 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199124

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0711141359.htm

[william r sanford72]

Presence of Neonic Insecticides in Wild Turkeys Highlights Widespread Contamination of the Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2018) Neonicotinoid insecticides have become notorious for their impacts to insect pollinators like bees and butterflies, but research finding the presence of these chemicals in wild turkeys is raising new concerns about the ubiquitous nature of these chemicals once released into the environment. Published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research by a team from the University of Guelph (UG), this new study highlights the broader effects of neonicotinoids on wildlife, and underlines calls to restrict the use of these products in favor of a more sustainable pest management approach.

Looking at roughly 40 wild turkeys in southern Ontario, researchers found 10 that contained pesticide residue in their livers. Claire Jardine, PhD, pathobiology professor and study co-author notes that wild turkeys in agricultural regions are more likely to be contaminated. “Wild turkeys supplement their diet with seeds from farm fields,” she indicated in a press release.

The agrichemical industry coats a majority of corn and soybean seeds with neonicotinoids prior to planting. Because of their systemic nature, neonicotinoids are incorporated the seedlings as they grow, with the promise by the industry that this will alleviate pest pressure. However, a significant body of research, including EPA studies, have found that neonicotinoid seed treatments provide little to no benefit to farmers. An assessment published earlier this year by an international team of scientists found that an alternative insurance model could easily replace the need for farmers to purchase expensive neonicotinoid-coated seeds.

“A number of member hunters throughout southern Ontario had seen wild turkeys in the fields eating these seeds,” said another study co-author Amanda MacDonald, PhD. “In certain areas, they noticed a lack of young birds and wanted to know if neonicotinoids had anything to do with it.” As she noted, “There has been growing concern among natural resource managers, conservationists and hunters about whether the use of neonics may be linked to poor reproductive output of wild turkeys.”

Earlier research investigating how neonicotinoids affect birds had found that a single kernel of neonicotinoid-coated corn was enough to kill a songbird. Insecticides like neonicotinoids also been found to interfere with migration patterns, building evidence that the decline of many grassland birds is linked to the widespread use of pesticides on farmland. Although researchers have only tested for the presense of neonicotinoid contamination, the number of detections and reports from those on the ground paint a concerning picture. “We need to continue to assess levels of neonics in a variety of wildlife, especially those that may feed off the ground or consume plants and insects and therefore might be more likely to come into contact with them,” said another study coauthor, Nicole Nemeth, PhD.

Beyond Pesticides continues to work to raise awareness about the dangers and hazards these chemicals pose to wildlife and the wider environment. For more information about neonicotinoid coated seeds and what you can do in your community to protect pollinators and other species impacted by neonicotinoids, see the short video, “Seeds that Poison.”

We can manage land to produce food and encourage wild game without the use of toxic pesticides by moving to organic land management practices. These methods forgo pesticide use in favor of cultural practices that improve soil health and enhance natural ecosystem processes. For more information on organic land management see the recent article in Pesticides and You titled “Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions.”

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, EurekAlert

https://beyondpesticides.org/dailyne...n-environment/

[william r sanford72]

The Sting of Defeat: A Brief History of Insects in Warfare

By Ryan C. Gott, Ph.D.

Humans have waged entomological warfare, the use of insects and other arthropods as part of wartime tactics, in myriad ways for thousands of years. The long history of entomological warfare makes it a fascinating subject with many interesting examples from both entomological and sociological standpoints. This brief review is not meant to make light of this serious subject but rather to encourage reflection on sometimes regrettable actions of the past and inspire hope for positive humanitarian applications of entomology in the present and the future.

Entomological warfare (EW) has manifested through human history in three main forms: insects directly used as weapons, insects used to destroy crops, and insects used as vectors to inflict disease. More recently, though, insects have become sources of innovation for advanced military technology.

Insects as Weapons

During the Second Parthian War, King Barsamia used scorpion-stuffed pots thrown at the enemy to defend the ancient Middle Eastern city of Hatra from the Romans. It’s possible that these literal bug bombs also contained rove beetles in the genus Paederus. These small rove beetles’ hemolymph contains the compound pederin.

Pederin causes dermatitis and blistering when contacting skin, a likely scenario when panicked warriors began smashing beetles thrown onto them. King Mithridates VI of Pontus also enlisted arthropods in his wartime maneuvers but favored those of the hymenopteran persuasion. During the Third Mithridatic War, Mithridates ordered grayanotoxin-laden honey created by rhododendron-foraging honey bees to be left along roads for pursuing Roman invaders. Warriors eating this honey as part of their pillaged loot experienced intense sickness and hallucinations, giving it the name “mad honey.” The incapacitated Romans were then easy targets for Mithridates’ army. Mithridates also ordered the release of hornets and bees into sapper tunnels dug beneath battlefields. Clearly, applied entomology has a very long, if brutal, history.

Insects as Crop Pests

Deploying insects to destroy enemy crops is an odious act of EW of which many countries have accused one another, but it also one that is rarely proven. In 1944 Germany was accused of slipping Colorado potato beetles into Britain to decimate crops. After the Vietnam War, North Korea accused the United States of releasing insects in its agriculture (though any plant loss may have actually been caused by the defoliant Agent Orange). And in 1997 Cuba accused the U.S. of aerially dropping thrips onto the island during the Cold War. It’s near impossible to prove if these claims are true, but they certainly served their purpose of elevating one country’s complaints against another onto the world stage. Modern EW like the use of insects to destroy crops would be banned under the Biological Weapons Convention of the Geneva Conventions. Of course an individual country can ignore these conventions at any time, and not all countries subscribe to them in the first place.

Insects as Disease Vectors

Mosquitoes and yellow fever, lice and typhus, fleas and plague: Such insects may be most infamous as vectors of debilitating diseases. From Napoleon’s conquests to the American Civil War, battles and wars have been decided by these insect-initiated illnesses, whether accidentally or intentionally (such as the catapulting of plague-ridden corpses over city walls). Many countries have investigated the efficacy of insects and their associated diseases as biological weapons, including the United States, which has tested insect-based tactics on American citizens, notably in Operations Drop Kick, Big Buzz, and Big Itch. But the case of Dr. Shiro Ishii is perhaps the most disturbing example of vectors being used for entomological evil.

Dr. Shiro Ishii was a microbiologist and a Japanese army medical officer during the Second Sino-Japanese War and World War II. As he rose through the ranks, Ishii was placed in charge of building and running Unit 731, a top-secret biological weapons research and development facility. Unit 731 was established in northeast China in a Japanese puppet state on nearly 6 square kilometers of land. Officially, Unit 731 operated as a water purification plant and lumber mill, part of the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army.

Ishii and others working at Unit 731 would eventually kill well over 10,000 Chinese citizens and prisoners of war over the years. They referred to their victims as maruta or “logs,” which both referenced the cover story of being a sawmill and revealed their complete disregard for the lives of these people. Unit 731 investigated, among many deplorable things, the best disease and vector combinations to attack an enemy and the best way to introduce that vector, via water supply, air, on so on. For an in-depth account of the work of Ishii, and more on EW in general, the book Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War by Jeffrey Lockwood is a highly recommended read.

Insects as Inspiration

More recently, our ever-adaptable insects have a new role in warfare, one of bioinspiration rather than weaponry. An alloy capable of returning to its original shape, based on the cuticle of the ironclad beetle, is being developed for use in military vehicles. An engineering firm in the United Kingdom is developing a defense surveillance drone called the Skeeter with flight capabilities based on those of dragonflies. And many people have heard of the RoboBee, a tiny flying robot with mechanics based on insects that could also have covert surveillance applications.

With these as just a few of the ways insects continue to inspire innovation, entomology clearly has a bright future. As all entomologists know, there is still so much to learn from and about insects.

Ryan C. Gott, Ph.D., is an entomologist interested in ecotoxicology, pesticide resistance, and pest management. He is currently the Associate Director of Integrated Pest Management at Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in Pittsburgh.

https://entomologytoday.org/2018/07/...gical-warfare/

[william r sanford72]

Honey collection declines in the Sundarbans

The months of April, May and June are considered the natural period for honey collection in the mangrove forest

The collection of wild honey from the Sundarbans has fallen so much over the past few years, traditional honey collectors known as the “Mawali” are no longer motivated to enter the forest in the allotted time.

According to the Forest Department, a total of 723 quintal of wild honey was collected from the Burigoalini range in Sundarbans West Zone last year.

The range is considered to be the largest honey collection zone in the mangrove forest.

From the same range, 885 quintal was collected in 2015-16, 1030 quintal in 2014-15, and 1082 quintal in 2013-14.

“In the last few years, those who are entering the forest at the government declared time, are getting less amount of honey,” Sirajul Islam, a Mawali from Datinakhali area under the Burigoalini range, told the Dhaka Tribune.

Forest officials have blamed the reduced volume of honey on rising water salinity levels and the construction of mobile phone towers inside the forest.

Experts believe the changing of the flowering time period during the natural collection months of April, May and June could also be a factor.

The forest department only issues permits to the Mawali people for entering and collecting honey from the Sundarbans during this fixed timeframe.

“The government should shift the official time period for honey collection ahead by 15 days, as honey production has been beginning earlier than usual,” Pavel Partha, an ecology and biodiversity researcher with 12 years of experience working in Sunderbans, said.

“Many of the plants in the mangrove forest are dependent on honey for pollination. If the honey is not collected on a regular basis, the bees will become naturally lazy, and this could halt their movement as well as the pollination of plants.”

Rising sea levels and salinity

According to a recent government study titled “Assessment of Sea Level Rise and Vulnerability in the Coastal Zone of Bangladesh through Trend Analysis,” the water level in the Ganges tidal floodplain increased by 7-8mm per year over the last 30 years.

At the same time, it increased by 6-9mm per year in the Meghna Estuarine floodplain, and by 11-20mm a year in the Chittagong coastal plain area over the same period. The increasing sea level has led to salt encroaching further inland.

Data from the Soil Resource Development Institute (SRDI) shows that total area affected by salt in the coastal region increased by 26% from 1973 to 2009, with 3.5% of the increase taking place in the last nine years.

Areas affected by high salinity are primarily located in the southwestern and central zones of the coastal region.

“We have seen that less honey is being collected in recent years, and are trying to address the issue,” Md Bashirul-Al-Mamun, divisional forest officer of Sundarbans West Zone, said.

“Increasing salinity may have reduced the flowering of mangrove trees and led to the reduction in honey collected.”

Forest economy

The permit for a boat carrying up to nine people for honey collection requires a fee of around Tk7,000, with each person allowed to collect up to 75kg of honey. The forest department issues the permit from April 1 each year.

All of the teams that apply get permission to roam the entire forest and collect honey for a month. Apart from collectors with permission, many also enter the forest illegally in order to collect various resources, including honey.

According to the Forest Department, about 16,000 maunds (1 maund=37.32kg) of honey and honeycombs are extracted from the Sundarbans annually.

Around 500,000 people living on the periphery of the forest are hugely dependent on the forest for resources such as honey, fish, shrimp fry, crabs, Nipah Palm (Golpata), and wood.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/climate...the-sundarbans

[william r sanford72]

Thor Hansons Book...'Buzz' Offers An Adoration For Bees Amid Continued Die-Offs

Book Review by Barbara J. King, NPR.

Ecological statistics pertaining to bees carry a sting: More than 75 percent of the world's 115 primary crops require pollination or thrive better through interaction with pollinators.

Bees are the primary pollinators in the animal kingdom, yet sudden and massive die-offs of these insects began in 2006 and continue now, with a 30 percent annual loss reported by North American beekeepers.

These statistics — and the severity of this enormous reduction in bee numbers — is at the heart of Buzz: The Nature and Necessity of Bees authored by conservation biologist Thor Hanson.

The now-famous "Colony Collapse Disorder," where whole populations fall apart when workers go off on foraging trips and never return to the hive, is only part of the story, Hanson emphasizes. Bees face extreme pressures from the four P's — caused or exacerbated by human encroachment upon the natural world: parasites, poor nutrition, pesticides, and pathogens.

A skilled communicator, Hanson explain details of these pressures through his interviews with bee biologists and conservationists. Buzz shines the most brightly, though, when Hanson's own adoration of bees comes through: he wanders around the landscape observing them and musing about their natural history in ways that light up the page and make the book a rewarding choice for readers keen on science and nature.

Vegetarianism is at the heart of bees' lives. At some point in the past, flower-feeding bees evolved from carnivorous wasps.

What would drive such a change? Wasps hunt one kind of prey for their own consumption, but then "track down something entirely different for their offspring." By contrast, "bees had the advantage of one-stop shopping," Hanson notes. "A good flower gave them sugary nectar for their own use, and protein-rich pollen that could be carried back home to nourish the young."

Entomologists cannot pinpoint when this evolutionary divergence of bees from wasps occurred but know that it was before 70 million years ago, the date of the first "unequivocal" bee found in the fossil record. Thinking about this ancient date, the imagination flares: Did towering dinosaurs notice the tiny bees with whom they shared the world?

From that point forward, bees and flowers have been locked in an intricate evolutionary dance. This choreography should not be romanticized, Hanson states flatly: "Bees perceive flowers as a resource, and flowers use bees as convenient tools."

A theme in Buzz is the splendid diversity of the world's bees — a richness tallying to more than 20,000 species — that goes largely unrecognized because honeybees command so much of our attention.

"All the multitudes of wild bees stand in the shadow of their single, better-known cousin," Hanson remarks.

Native only to Africa, Europe and Western Asia, honeybees are invasive here in the Americas where at times they out-compete (and thus harm) native species. Honeybees are highly social, but the popular linkage of bees and bustling hives isn't necessarily accurate: Many bees are solitary. Once a mason-bee mother, for instance, lays an egg, she walls it up with a supply of food and "moves on without a second thought," Hanson explains.

Natural-history work on bees requires collecting bees for close and comparative analysis. This is the method by which entomological science unfolds.

"Killing jars quickly produce piles of dead bees that must be fixed on pins," Hanson says, to allow for accurate identification. Even as he pens a near-ode to a beautiful opalescent alkali bee – "the first one I fell in love with" —he notes how quickly he scooped the bee into that lethal jar. I can't help but think that this specimen collecting, multiplied as it is by all the entomologists, graduate students, and amateurs who carry it out, could be somewhat reigned in for the sake of the living animals, without hurting science.

Just like the Hadza hunter-gatherers of today, our Paleolithic ancestors almost certainly prized the sweetness of honey, and we know that people kept bees long before horses were domesticated or crops like apples or coffee were planted. Now, heavy dependence on bees as a key pollinator for our own foods means we're at a crisis stage.

Hanson travels to the almond groves of California's Central Valley where 81 percent of the world's almonds are grown and where rented pollinators run the show — bees trucked in from as far away as Florida and Maine. Pollinator conservation experts are working to entice local bees to the almond groves by planting bee-friendly flowers and hedgerows.

Hanson urges his readers to go outside on a sunny day, "find a bee on a flower, and settle down to watch." That's a great idea for a languid summer day, and his own rambles to bee-besotted cliffs on the island in Washington State where he lives provide charming models.

Our appreciation for bees shouldn't stop there. Hanson insists that we already know enough about the ecological crisis unfolding "to act in specific ways" on behalf of these insects whose lives intersect so closely with our own. Among other things, all of us — "ordinary citizens" as well as conservationists, Hanson says — can work toward reducing the use of pesticides and build up our landscapes to include more flowers and bee-nesting habitats.

Barbara J. King is an author and anthropology professor emerita at the College of William and Mary. Her most recent books are How Animals Grieve and Personalities on the Plate: The Lives & Minds of Animals We Eat.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/15/62881...inued-die-offs

[Star Tsar]

Bee-Keepers of London may wish to check this link out for events, advice etc...

http://www.lbka.org.uk/

[william r sanford72]

Assessment of spatial and temporal variations in trace element concentrations using honeybees (Apis mellifera) as bioindicators

Nenad M. Zaric​1, Isidora Deljanin1, Konstantin Ilijević2, Ljubiša Stanisavljević3, Mirjana Ristić4, Ivan Gržetić2

July 16, 2018

Author and article information
1
Innovation Center of the Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Chemistry, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
3
Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
4
Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serb

Subject Areas
Biosphere Interactions, Atmospheric Chemistry, Environmental Contamination and Remediation, Environmental Impacts

Abstract

With the increase in anthropogenic activities metal pollution is also increased and needs to be closely monitored. In this study honeybees were used as bioindicators to monitor metal pollution. Metal pollution in honeybees represents pollution present in air, water and soil. Concentrations of As, Cs, Hg, Mo, Sb, Se, U and V were measured. The aim of this study was to assess spatial and temporal variations of metal concentrations in honeybees. Samples of honeybees were taken at five different regions in Serbia (Belgrade - BG, Pančevo - PA, Pavliš - PV, Mesić - MS, and Kostolac - TPP) during 2014. Spatial variations were observed for Sb, which had higher concentrations in BG compared to all other regions, and for U, with higher concentrations in the TPP region.

High concentrations of Sb in BG were attributed to intense traffic, while higher U concentrations in the TPP region are due to the vicinity of coal fired power plants.

In order to assess temporal variations at two locations (PA and PV) samples were taken during July and September of 2014 and June, July, August and September of 2015. During 2014 observing months of sampling higher concentrations in July were detected for Sb and U in BG, which is attributed to lifecycle of plants and honeybees. During the same year higher concentrations in September were observed for As, Sb in PA and Hg in PV. This is due to high precipitation during the peak of bee activity in spring/summer of 2014. No differences between months of sampling were detected during 2015. Between 2014 and 2015 statistically significant differences were observed for Hg, Mo and V; all elements had higher concentrations in 2014. This is in accordance with the trend of reduction of metal concentrations in the bodies of honeybees throughout the years in this region.

Main article text:https://peerj.com/articles/5197/

[william r sanford72]

Why Are American Beekeepers Losing 40-50% Of Their Bees?

TheOrganicView

Published on Jul 16, 2018

Regardless of the bumper crops hobbyist beekeepers boast about and random pockets where bees appear to be thriving, the fact is American honey bees and other pollinators are in serious trouble. Although each administration makes an attempt to do something to help protect our pollinators, we have a long way to go before we can even think about following in the footsteps of the EU and pass a ban on neonicotinoids.

Recently, the Congressional Pollinator Protection Caucus was held in Washington, DC. Mr. Tim May, President of the American Beekeeping Federation attended and has some interesting facts to share. In this segment of The Neonicotinoid View Radio Show, bee health advocates, June Stoyer and Tom Theobald talk to Tim May about this briefing. Mr. May will also share his views about how American beekeepers are faring, despite confusing statistics from USDA.

www.theorganicview.com

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JhtGhyBlX28

[william r sanford72]

Asian Honeybees Perform An Extraordinary Act Of Self-Sacrifice To Protect The Hive Against Invading Hornets

By Rosie McCall

New research, published in the journal Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, shows that Asian honeybees (Apis cerana japonica) perform an act of incredible self-sacrifice when confronted with an unwelcome guest.

The Japanese giant hornet (Vespa mandarinia japonica) is a particularly nasty predator that can massacre as many as 40 Asian honeybees in a single minute. During the autumn months, when the hornets are at work tending to their larvae, beehives may have to withstand as many as 30 hornet attacks a week. A bee's weapon-of-choice – its stinger – is hopeless against the hornet's rigid exoskeleton, so the Asian honeybee has had to devise a new tactic.

In order to survive the annual barrage of hornet attacks, the honeybees perform an unusual but incredibly altruistic behavior known as “hot defensive bee ball formation”.

Hundreds of worker honeybees will swarm the hornet while vibrating their wings to amp up the heat. The entire process can go on for more than 30 minutes, during which time temperatures inside the ball can climb to 46°C (115°F). It is essentially death by heat as far as the hornet is concerned.

These defensive ball formations were originally described in 1995, and since then, researchers have analyzed the neural mechanisms behind the extraordinary behavior. Now, a team of researchers led by Atsushi Ugajin, an entomologist at Tamagawa University, Japan, has shown that all this swarming and vibrating comes at a great personal cost for the honeybees involved.

To find out what effect the ball formation has on the honeybees' lifespan, the researchers compared the survival rates of participating honeybees to those of non-participating honeybees. All honeybees, regardless of what group they fell into, were the same age at the experiment's start (15 to 20 days) to keep things fair.

Following an attack, the honeybees that formed balls were dead within 10 days. In contrast, those that did not participate in the ball formation and were instead kept in the hive at 32°C (90°F) were all dead within 16 days. (For reference, the average lifespan for an Asian worker honeybee is a few weeks.)

The team was also curious to see what would happen when there was more than one attack, as there often is out in the wild. They noticed that the honeybees involved in the ball forming in the first attack were far more likely to join the ball forming in the second attack. And while the researchers can't say why this is for sure, they suspect this self-sacrificing behavior helps reduce the cost that the ball formations have on the colony by limiting the number of individual honeybees involved in the behavior.

To watch the bees in action, check out this video:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=K6m40W1s0Wc

Double-edged heat: honeybee participation in a hot defensive bee ball reduces life expectancy with an increased likelihood of engaging in future defense:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...265-018-2545-z

Meet the "hot defensive bee ball," one of the craziest tactics in the animal kingdom:
https://io9.gizmodo.com/5892986/meet...animal-kingdom

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...ading-hornets/

[william r sanford72]

Secret test with DNA-hacked maize in Flanders

"I am surprised and disappointed" – Leen Laenens, chairman of Velt (Association for Ecological Life and Gardening)

Below is a Google translation (slightly edited for clarity) of an article that appeared today in the Belgian newspaper De Morgen.

The organisation that conducted the secret test with genome edited (GM) maize, the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology (VIB), has been lobbying for years for less or no regulation for genome editing techniques.

For the threats posed by so-called genome editing techniques, see this statement https://ensser.org/publications/ngmt-statement/ from concerned scientists.

Read this comment on the GMWatch site to access all sources:
https://www.gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18361

Secret test with DNA-hacked maize in Flanders: "I am surprised and disappointed"

Jeroen Van Horenbeek en Barbara Debusschere

De Morgen, 23 July 2018

https://www.demorgen.be/wetenschap/r...-toe-b4310c58/

On Wednesday, Europe must make a statement about GMO legislation

The Flemish Institute for Biotechnology has been secretly conducting a field trial with genetically modified maize for a year and a half. The plants have been changed via a sensational new technique that does not yet have clear European legislation. Nevertheless, the federal government agreed with it. This was revealed by De Morgen's research.

The new technique is the CRISPR/Cas9 method. This is regarded as a breakthrough in biology: a molecular "craft set" that researchers can cut and paste cheaply, easily and at will into the DNA of plants, animals and human embryos.

The enormous potential of this "DNA hacking" is also the great danger, according to a number of scientists. The method offers the potential to effectively combat many hereditary diseases and also AIDS, malaria and cancer, but you can also develop that never existed before or eradicate entire populations.

In laboratories worldwide, experiments with the CRISPR/Cas9 method are currently taking place. But confidential documents collected by De Morgen show that researchers from the Flemish Institute for Biotechnology (VIB) have already taken a step further. Since last year they have planted a field with maize plants that have been changed with the new technology.

VIB spokesman René Custers confirms the existence of the field trial. He emphasizes that this is fundamental research. "The DNA of the maize has undergone a minor change in such a way that the impact of environmental stress such as extreme weather conditions or environmental pollution on the genetic material of the plant can be investigated," he says. "With the knowledge we gain, we hope to find ways to better arm plants against those circumstances."

Custers does not want to disclose the location of the field trial. Previous experiments conducted by the VIB, with GM potatoes and poplars, took place in Wetteren. Field Liberation campaigners stormed a potato field there in 2011. Tests with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are therefore sensitive. But that is not the only reason why the maize field trial has been kept secret for so long: there is currently no clear European legislation on CRISPR/Cas9.

European Court

In Europe, since 2012, there has been a discussion about whether new genetic techniques such as CRISPR/Cas9 should be regarded as genetic modification or not. Biotech companies do not think so, because no "foreign" DNA is added and only existing genes are modified. The environmental movement does not agree with this. The EU keeps deliberating. The European Commission called for restraint in the Member States in 2015, but at the same time never did anything to ban research.

In 2016, the VIB researchers became tired of waiting for clarity and then turned to the federal government. Environment minister Marie Christine Marghem (MR) agreed to a field trial. Based on an analysis of the Belgian legislation on GMOs by her administration, Marghem decided that the CRISPR/Cas9 method would not be covered.

This decision made it possible that the field trial could be carried out in complete secrecy, without a time-consuming GMO permit procedure and different types of associated risk analyses.

Asked for a reaction, the Marghem Cabinet could not provide any comment yesterday.

"I am surprised and disappointed," says Leen Laenens, chairman of Velt (Association for Ecological Life and Gardening). "At the start of this month, we sent a letter from Voedsel Anders [Food Otherwise] – which Velt is a part of – to the federal government asking it to apply the precautionary principle. Which means being careful with the new gene techniques. And then you suddenly hear this. It's incomprehensible. As long as there is no clarity, certainly you must not allow such a field test."

That clarity might be coming soon. On Wednesday, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg must settle the discussion on the new genetic techniques. "The question is whether such a plant is a GMO and in order to obtain certainty about it, we applied to the Belgian government. They confirmed to us that our maize plants do not fall under the provisions of Belgian GMO legislation," says Custers. "Of course it is exciting now because the European Court's ruling can change that. We wait. Hopefully there will now be clarity.

We have been urging Europe for a few years now."

Unwanted mutations

In the meantime it appears that the CRISPR/Cas9 method is less predictable than expected. Last week, the leading journal Nature published a study that shows that the technique "causes many profound mutations and DNA damage". Something that earlier research also suggested. "We have underestimated this," says Patrick Hsu (Salk Institute) in Nature.

Professor of botany Michel Haring (University of Amsterdam) advocates transparency: "There are always unexpected and other effects that differ for every plant. You have to check that very well indeed – and we can now do that. But anyone who is enthusiastic about this because it offers a lot of possibilities cannot fail to admit that it is a GMO procedure. The only honest approach is to make that clear to the public."

Website: http://www.gmwatch.org

https://mailchi.mp/gmwatch.org/secre...s?e=eb54924245

[william r sanford72]

Why care about Propolis with Marla Spivak

ery beekeeper at one point has dealt with propolis. Whether you have had it stuck to your gloves, suit, or clumped on your hive tool, propolis can bee a nuisance. Where does it come from? Why do bees produce so much? Why should beekeepers care?

Our expert guest panelist, Marla Spivak, will enlighten us on where bees collect this resin, how it benefits our colonies, and how beekeepers can encourage the production of propolis in their bee hives.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xsj8mB4KKZs

[william r sanford72]

musical interlude/recipe..cooking with clutch.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SOTrHrGSeNM

Rock on..

[william r sanford72]

The Buzz Over Queen Bee Learning And Memory

Chinese scientists have demonstrated that epigenetics contributes to superior learning capacities in queen bees.

AsianScientist (Jul. 30, 2018) – A research group in China has found that honey bee queens are better learners than worker bees due to epigenetics.

Their findings are published in the Journal of Experimental Biology. In social insects, the study of learning and memory has been especially productive because multiple aspects of sociality and how animals interact with their environment—colony defense, foraging and even communication—rely upon sophisticated learning and memory. Honey bees have a major ecological role as pollinators in multiple ecosystems.

However, no studies have demonstrated that honey bee queen learning exists or have examined it in detail. In the present study, Professor Tan Ken and his team at Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, China, investigated learning in queen bees of the Apis mellifera species.

They focused on olfactory learning because queens, like workers, likely have good olfactory abilities and olfactory learning has been studied in more detail than any other form of honey bee learning. The researchers compared queen and worker bee olfactory learning at different ages using classical conditioning of the proboscis extension reflex.

“Our data provide the first demonstration that honey bee queens, like workers, have excellent learning and memory,” said Tan.

They also found that the proportion of honey bee queens that exhibited olfactory learning markedly exceeded that of workers of the same age, particularly in young bees. Hence, queen bees possess higher learning capacities than worker bees. The researchers also observed that the enzyme Dnmt3, which adds methyl-group tags to DNA, was elevated in queen bees compared to worker bees.

When they inhibited DNA methylation in the bees with the chemical zebularine, both queen and worker bees exhibited significantly reduced learning and memory. Collectively, these findings indicate that epigenetics is important for social insects to remember and recall tasks or interactions required for colony formation.

The article can be found at: Gong et al. (2018) First Demonstration of Olfactory Learning and Long-term Memory in Honey Bee Queens.

Read more from Asian Scientist Magazine at: https://www.asianscientist.com/2018/...arning-memory/

[william r sanford72]

usda national Honey report for july 2018

[william r sanford72]

Funny Honey at the Zoo Reveals Bees’ Foraging on Sugar Baits

By Meredith Swett Walker

Honey bees are hard-working foragers who get most of the carbohydrates they need from floral nectar, but they won’t pass up a sweet snack just because it doesn’t come from a flower. They’ll occasionally forage on honey dew produced by other insects and sugary food left out by humans. The honey bee’s flexibility in foraging from nonfloral sources is handy for beekeepers who can supplement their hives with sugar water when flowers are scarce. But searching for sweetness in the wrong places has the potential to expose bees to danger.

In a new study published this week in the Journal of Insect Science, Nathaniel Kapaldo and James Carpenter, Ph.D., from Kansas State University and Lee Cohnstaedt, Ph.D., from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Center for Grain and Animal Health Research in Manhattan, Kansas, describe significant foraging by honey bee colonies on dyed sugar baits similar to those used in attractive toxic sugar bait (ATSB) systems to control insects such as mosquitoes. While prior studies have shown limited impact of ATSBs on nontarget insects, results of this study suggest that honey bees may have higher exposure to these baits than previously estimated.

ATSBs consist of a sugar source, an oral toxin, and sometimes a chemical attractant. They are gaining popularity as a mosquito-control technique because they are easy to use, reasonably effective, and can be relatively environmentally friendly. Both male and female mosquitoes feed on sugary plant juices, including nectar. Female mosquitoes also require protein-rich blood in order to produce eggs, but both sexes are attracted to and can be killed using sugar baits. Because mosquitoes ingest the bait, the toxin does not have to kill on contact, and so moderate toxins can be used including pyrethroids, borates, and botanicals. To reduce effects on nontarget insects, ATSBs are typically sprayed on foliage, not flowers.

The researchers in Kansas did not set out to study honey bee foraging on sugar baits; they were interested in mosquito movements. They deployed dyed, nontoxic sugar baits to mark mosquitoes in the Sunset Zoo in Manhattan, Kansas, to help determine where they were coming from. Sugar baits consisted of an approximately 1-to-4 ratio of sugar to water and standard food coloring (red, blue, or green) from a grocery store. The sugar bait was sprayed on foliage (not flowers) of plants at three locations in the zoo, and mosquitoes were then sampled to determine if they had dyed foreguts.

But, about one month following the experiment with the dyed sugar baits, the apiculturist maintaining the zoo’s bee hives reported some oddly colored honey. Four of the zoo’s six hives contained red honey—of the 133 kilograms (kg) of honey the apiculturist harvested, about 57 kg of it was dyed bright red.

The dyed honey demonstrates significant foraging by the bees on the sugar baits, which in this instance were not toxic. But, had this been a toxic bait, the effect on the bees could have been significant, depending on the toxin used. Cohnstaedt emphasizes that, based on the amount of honey that contained dye, future studies of the effect of ATSB on honey bee colonies should examine whole-hive health, rather than just the effects on individual bees as has been done in the past. The authors also recommend measuring sublethal effects of toxins used in ATSBs—a toxin may not kill the bees, but it could affect a colony’s ability to forage, produce honey, and reproduce.

If future studies do show that ATSBs are bad news for bees, does that spell the end for this promising vector-management technique? Not necessarily, says Cohnstaedt: “Bait stations versus broadcast spraying would reduce contact with nontarget species and environmental contamination.” Bait stations can be fitted with a screen that prevent bees and other nontarget insects from accessing the toxic sugar bait. ATSB stations could also be used to control mosquitoes and other biting insects indoors.

In science, things don’t always go as planned, and sometimes that’s when you learn the most. According to Cohnstaedt, this study “is a case of turning a disaster into a positive. We really thought we had ruined a lot of honey at the zoo, however it turned out fine as it was a food-grade dye, and we learned a lot about the foraging of bees and sugar baits.”

Read More
“Harvesting Sugar From Nonflowering Plants: Implications of a Marked Sugar Bait on Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Whole Hive Health”https://academic.oup.com/jinsectscie...18/4/9/5061244

Journal of Insect Science

https://entomologytoday.org/2018/08/...c-sugar-baits/

[Foxie Loxie]

Hello, Friend! The above article made me think of the story of some sort of honey being used by someone against the Roman troupes to make them sick. I figured you would know about that!

[william r sanford72]

Posted by Foxie Loxie (here)
Hello, Friend! The above article made me think of the story of some sort of honey being used by someone against the Roman troupes to make them sick. I figured you would know about that!

Yes indeed Foxie I did post a article some time ago about that battle and How Toxic Honey was used against them and just recently posted another article on insects and warfare..intitled The Sting of Defeat: A Brief History of Insects in Warfare..https://entomologytoday.org/2018/07/...gical-warfare/

Your memory is as sharp as ever Foxie..

William..