Checkout Michael Schacker's book 'A Spring Without Bees.' Though it is a bit one-sided, he makes a compelling case for the pesticide Imidacloprid (IMD) being a significant factor in the honey-bee decline (I don't have it on hand, but I think he cites a study that shows that IMD "intoxicates" bees at as low as 6 ppb).
French beekeepers have been saying it was IMD for years and even though the "official" studies (from Bayer, the manufacturer of IMD) say there is no negative effect on bees.
That said, since the French banned IMD in 1999 (for use on sunflowers and other crops) they've seen a decline in CCD.
I'm a part of a few online beekeeping groups and the general feeling about this NYT article is that yes, probably a fungus + virus is what is killing the bees, but why are they weakened to such a point that it is spreading so disastrously? And here pesticides, migratory stress (i.e. driving them all around the country to pollenate crops), feeding them large amounts of hfcs, and general overwork all seem to play a part in weakening colonies.
I became a beekeeper the end of August when I collected a swarm on the end of our block. I've since become keenly aware of the extent to which beekeeping has become "commercialized". Ignoring (external) factors like pesticides, etc., pollination activities subject them to intense pressures (monoculture, hive movement, sick bees from remote geographies, etc.). Varroa, for example, is pretty much endemic in hives throughout the US after having been "introduced" in the late 80s.
The University of Minnesota, known for the Minnesota Hygienic line, instructs fledgling beekeepers to follow a "two-year" plan. The first year involves lots of chemical treatments (routine use of "nasty" chemicals is now the norm in the hive), the second year more chemicals and (hopefully) lots of honey. After two years? Kill the hive.
The end-game in all of this seems unsustainable (highly-evolved diseases and highly-chemical-dependent hives). I've been trying to work out a better plan for myself: one that does not tolerate chemical treatments (but is willing to let weak hives die), works with the bees, and fosters reproduction of thriving stock. I'd appreciate any resources you'd be able to share to aid in this.
I'm not quite sure why this is being voted down. Anyone care to share the reason? Factual inaccuracies? Criticizing Bayer scientists? Vilifying HFCS? I'd love to get feedback on how the above post is out of line.
I'd like to point out that there is huge financial incentives for the chem-companies to prove it isn't chemicals. Case in point, take the book 'The Idiots Guide to Beekeeping'
In this book they suggest small-cell beekeeping as a way to help prevent the infection of mites. The chem companies and suppliers are furious that they would suggest this and are aggressively applying pressure to the publishers of the book. The publishers, who know little about beekeeping are in turn applying pressure to the authors to redact their stance on small-cell beekeeping.
French beekeepers have been saying it was IMD for years and even though the "official" studies (from Bayer, the manufacturer of IMD) say there is no negative effect on bees.
That said, since the French banned IMD in 1999 (for use on sunflowers and other crops) they've seen a decline in CCD.
I'm a part of a few online beekeeping groups and the general feeling about this NYT article is that yes, probably a fungus + virus is what is killing the bees, but why are they weakened to such a point that it is spreading so disastrously? And here pesticides, migratory stress (i.e. driving them all around the country to pollenate crops), feeding them large amounts of hfcs, and general overwork all seem to play a part in weakening colonies.