pages: C ONTENTS  
  What   happened   to   the   bees   this   spring?..............................................................................................2   Part   1:   Environmental   and   biotic   factors ..............................................................................................2   Randy   Oliver ..........................................................................................................................................2   ScientificBeekeeping.com .....................................................................................................................2   setting   the   stage................................................................................................................................2   the   lead   up.........................................................................................................................................3   the   drought........................................................................................................................................4   lack   of   good   forage............................................................................................................................5   varroa ................................................................................................................................................6   diseases .............................................................................................................................................7   Other   indicators   of   impending   collapse ............................................................................................9   an   unexpected   chill ...........................................................................................................................9   feedback   from   brokers....................................................................................................................11   The   silent   majority...........................................................................................................................11   beekeeper   management .................................................................................................................12   What   happened   to   the   bees   this   spring?............................................................................................13   Part   2:   the   contribution   from   pesticides.............................................................................................13   Randy   Oliver ........................................................................................................................................13   ScientificBeekeeping.com ...................................................................................................................13   The   lynch   mob.................................................................................................................................14   debunking   the   myths.......................................................................................................................15   The   precautionary   principle ............................................................................................................20   See   for   yourself................................................................................................................................21   be   careful   what   you   ask   for!............................................................................................................24   the   effect   of   drought.......................................................................................................................24   actions   to   take.................................................................................................................................25   bottom   line......................................................................................................................................27   References.......................................................................................................................................27  
   
   <fig rect=[138.05999755859375, 49.36500549316406, 487.92169189453125, 95.08501434326172]></fig>
  <fig rect=[248.51783752441406, 108.91860961914062, 375.1646423339844, 141.91445922851562]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 147.00003051757812, 66.33599853515625, 163.48802185058594]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.9959716796875, 164.8049774169922, 559.4090576171875, 238.3095703125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 253.3348846435547, 182.02676391601562, 267.31488037109375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.001007080078125, 286.06500244140625, 558.3314819335938, 405.1627197265625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[494.81988525390625, 685.2449340820312, 497.30218505859375, 696.2249145507812]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 704.008544921875, 547.63330078125, 744.228759765625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(126.23999786376953, 417.3599853515625, 494.8199768066406, 693.47998046875)></fig> <fig rect=[63.0, 47.77500915527344, 141.7084503173828, 61.755008697509766]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.013427734375, 80.50498962402344, 558.8306274414062, 168.6986083984375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[84.65863037109375, 183.15928649902344, 87.14092254638672, 194.1392822265625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[491.2200012207031, 414.58502197265625, 493.7023010253906, 425.56500244140625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 433.3484802246094, 559.4138793945312, 486.8359680175781]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.98895263671875, 496.0049133300781, 559.765869140625, 584.1986694335938]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.017669677734375, 598.6593017578125, 554.5601196289062, 640.5426025390625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(130.55999755859375, 206.40000915527344, 491.5199890136719, 422.8800048828125)></fig> <fig rect=[545.219970703125, 422.6850280761719, 547.7022705078125, 433.6650085449219]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.99998474121094, 441.448486328125, 547.5396728515625, 519.522705078125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 534.554931640625, 151.85792541503906, 548.534912109375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.002593994140625, 567.284912109375, 557.6303100585938, 655.4844970703125]></fig>
  <fig rect=(76.5, 45.720001220703125, 544.5, 430.20001220703125)></fig> <fig rect=[520.8599853515625, 390.64501953125, 523.34228515625, 401.625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 409.4084777832031, 536.9439697265625, 487.48272705078125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0025634765625, 501.94342041015625, 554.6868896484375, 574.660888671875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 589.6949462890625, 205.6529541015625, 603.6749267578125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.996307373046875, 622.425048828125, 559.6834716796875, 736.0609130859375]></fig>
  <fig rect=(100.86000061035156, 45.720001220703125, 520.1400146484375, 398.1600036621094)></fig> <fig rect=[504.3599853515625, 336.70501708984375, 506.84228515625, 347.68499755859375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 355.4684753417969, 559.3468017578125, 422.1488037109375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.99139404296875, 431.32501220703125, 550.32861328125, 488.62091064453125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.9937744140625, 503.08160400390625, 552.656494140625, 575.8626098632812]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 590.8948974609375, 116.56681060791016, 604.8748779296875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.991363525390625, 623.625, 559.8701171875, 721.7808837890625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(117.36000061035156, 45.720001220703125, 503.6400146484375, 344.2200012207031)></fig> <fig rect=[63.0, 47.20487976074219, 549.2517700195312, 160.849609375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 175.87498474121094, 120.69649505615234, 189.85498046875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.988922119140625, 208.6050262451172, 558.6708374023438, 281.32086181640625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.98529052734375, 295.78155517578125, 559.6827392578125, 378.5209045410156]></fig>
  <fig rect=[484.55999755859375, 643.60498046875, 487.04229736328125, 654.5849609375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[310.5, 662.4285278320312, 313.2855529785156, 676.1959838867188]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.995941162109375, 681.6268310546875, 546.5580444335938, 721.8471069335938]></fig>
  <fig rect=(136.44000244140625, 390.719970703125, 484.55999755859375, 651.8399658203125)></fig> <fig rect=[510.1799011230469, 333.6884765625, 512.9654541015625, 347.4559631347656]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.997283935546875, 350.73248291015625, 552.5805053710938, 377.6963195800781]></fig>
  <fig rect=[510.1799011230469, 673.4085083007812, 512.9654541015625, 687.1759643554688]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.99725341796875, 690.3923950195312, 559.87109375, 730.6126708984375]></fig>
  <fig rect=(110.81999969482422, 44.94000244140625, 510.2400207519531, 344.4599914550781)></fig>
  <fig rect=(110.81999969482422, 384.6600036621094, 510.2400207519531, 684.1799926757812)></fig> <fig rect=[63.0, 43.46849060058594, 558.7238159179688, 70.43231964111328]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 84.25498962402344, 335.2195739746094, 98.23499298095703]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.99517822265625, 116.92497253417969, 552.078125, 215.140869140625]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 230.1749725341797, 199.19418334960938, 244.15496826171875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.00244140625, 262.905029296875, 554.4381103515625, 335.62091064453125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 346.3484802246094, 65.78556060791016, 360.115966796875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[526.0800170898438, 516.74853515625, 528.8656005859375, 530.5159912109375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.99566650390625, 533.732421875, 555.9033813476562, 600.4054565429688]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.9853515625, 609.5848999023438, 561.2924194335938, 723.220947265625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(63.0, 367.1400146484375, 526.0799560546875, 527.52001953125)></fig> <fig rect=[63.0, 47.20487976074219, 552.6319580078125, 181.71856689453125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.999969482421875, 196.1792449951172, 556.1837158203125, 309.8226013183594]></fig>
  <fig rect=[544.0800170898438, 624.7650146484375, 546.5623168945312, 635.7449951171875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.98997497558594, 643.5285034179688, 554.8629150390625, 710.2015991210938]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 723.9750366210938, 66.16051483154297, 737.9550170898438]></fig>
  <fig rect=(76.86000061035156, 322.0199890136719, 544.1400146484375, 633.0)></fig> FEEDBACK   FROM   BROKERS  
  I   asked   a   few   of   the   major   pollination   brokers   for   their   observations   on   the   colony   shortage   this   season.    Their   feedback   suggested   that   the   causes   for   the   bee   shortage   were   varied   and   many.    Summary:   1.   Most   were   able   to   eventually   fill   their   contracts.    Beekeepers   often   hold   colonies   in   reserve   “just   in   case,”   or   gambling   that   in   “short”   years   they   can   rent   those   last   hives   at   an   elevated   price.    Also,   when   the   offered   price   went   up,   hives   not   originally   intended   to   go   to   almonds   were   loaded   up   at   the   last   minute   and   shipped   to   California   (I   was   in   Florida   at   the   start   of   bloom,   and   had   an   inspector   tell   me   of   certifying   colonies   for   shipment   after   the   bloom   had   already   begun!).   2.   A   number   of   hives   received   in   November   were   already   headed   downhill.    Some   exhibited   the   symptom   of   bees   not   clustering   properly   (a   typical   sign   preceding   sudden   colony   depopulation/CCD).     Some   arrived   crawling   with   mites,   or   with   recent   mite   treatments   in   place   (suggesting   that   they   were   treated   too   late).   3.   Some   graders   saw   piles   of   dead   bees   in   front   of   hives—cause   unknown.    There   were   reports   of   some   herbicide   tank   mixes   killing   bees.   4.   Many   of   the   placed   colonies   were   below   standard   grade—   growers   paid   for   less   than   they   expected!     5.   Graders   told   me   that   there   was   a   huge   variation   in   hive   strength   from   beekeeper   to   beekeeper.    Many   hives   were   strong   (12 ‐ 16   frames   of   bees)   and   healthy;   other   operations   graded   at   zero   to   three   frames   of   bees   (some   of   the   deadouts   had   spider   webs   inside,   suggesting   that   they   hadn’t   been   occupied   by   bees   for   some   time).   6.   The   unusual   winter   chill   was   tough   on   colonies   that   had   been   stimulated   into   early   buildup,   and   then   forced   to   contract   their   broodnests.    Some   colonies   kicked   out   chilled   brood   and   dead   bees   afterwards.   7.   Many   beekeepers   watched   their   colonies   go   “backward”   prior   to   bloom.   8.   Colonies   from   the   Southern   states   (especially   those   delivered   in   February)   were   generally   in   better   shape   than   those   from   the   Midwest.   9.   Midwestern   beekeepers   blamed   drought,   mites,   poor   nutrition.   10.   Several   beekeepers   said   that   their   best   bees   came   from   remote   areas,   and   their   worst   from   ag   areas.   11.   A   number   of   beekeepers   admitted   inadequate   mite   treatment;   mites   were   a   recurrent   theme.   12.   There   were   a   number   of   reports   of   EFB   hitting   colonies.   13.  Some   had   gotten   hit   last   summer   with   pesticide   sprays,   and   their   colonies   didn’t   recover.   14.  “There   were   good   bees   and   bad   bees   from   every   state.   They   all   seemed   to   have   different   problems   depending   on   location/state.”   15.  Many   good   beekeepers   simply   didn’t   know   what   happened   to   their   hives;   there   were   lots   of   lifeless   hives   delivered.    The   atmosphere   was   ripe   with   speculation   as   to   the   actual   causes.   16.  “The   shortage   was   also   created   by   beekeepers   that   chose   not   to   come   to   California   for   a   variety   of   reasons.    They   can   make   more   money   with   honey,   didn’t   get   paid   for   what   they   have   brought   in   the   past,   bees   come   back   home   with   mites,   beetles   and   whatever   else   takes   a   ride   on   the   hives.   Beekeepers   don’t   want   to   risk   bee   health   to   chase   the   dollar . ”    Many   out ‐ of ‐ state   beekeepers   have   had   bad   experiences   going   to   almonds,   and   simply   don’t   feel   that   it’s   worth   it.    The   supply   of   bees   will   largely   depend   upon   the   price   that   growers   offer   for   renting   them!  
  THE   SILENT   MAJORITY  
  Buzzkill   leaves   one   with   the   impression   that   the   entire   bee   and   almond   industries   are   on   the   verge   of   collapse.    Of   course,   the   news   media   focus   on   fear   and   disaster,   so   we   may   consider   taking   such   dire   projections   with   a   grain   of   salt.    In   the   case   of   Dan   Rather,   the   focus   was   on   the   beekeepers   with   troubles,   not   upon   those   who   successfully   filled   their   pollination   contracts.   So   just   how   severe   was   the   problem?    Let’s   say   that   there   was   an   overall   shortage   of   100,000   hives   (a   figure   that   I   heard   floated)—that   would   represent   only   about   6%   of   the   total   number   of   hives   placed   into   almond   pollination.    The   other   94%   were   successfully   delivered   (although   a   proportion   of   those   were   weak   due   to   the   poor   season).  
  Since   the   debacle,   I’ve   heard   from   plenty   of   beekeepers   whom   I’ll   refer   to   as   the   “silent   majority,”   who   experienced   “normal”   colony   winter   losses   in   the   5 ‐ 25%   range,   and   who   successfully   filled   their   pollination   contracts.    Although   the   hearts   of   all   beekeepers   go   out   to   those   who   suffered   severe   colony   losses,   many   felt   that   some   of   those   losses   could   have   been   prevented   if   the   afflicted   beekeepers   had   been   more   proactive   than   reactive.  
  And   don’t   forget   those   upon   whom   the   rest   of   the   industry   depends   to   supply   bees   for   restocking   their   deadouts!    The   California   package   producers,   who   have   been   pollinating   almonds   for   decades,   are   routinely   counted   on   to   consistently   take   strong   hives   to   almonds,   and   to   then   shake   over   a   hundred   thousand   packages   of   bees   for   sale   afterwards.    Few   of   these   major   producers   experience   severe   unexplained   colony   losses.   
  BEEKEEPER   MANAGEMENT  
  By   no   means   am   I   suggesting   that   those   beekeepers   who   suffered   losses   engaged   in   poor   beekeeping   practices,   but   I   can’t   help   but   notice   that   not   all   beekeepers   were   equally   affected—a   great   number   provided   strong,   healthy   colonies   to   almonds.    I’ve   spoken   to   some   of   them ‐‐ the   common   thread   is   that   those   who   recognized   the   problems   of   poor   nutrition   and   mites   in   August,   and   took   remedial   action   for   the   rest   of   the   season,   had   acceptable   winter   losses.  
  Some   beekeepers   who   really   put   serious   effort   and   money   into   bee   husbandry   were   even   able   to   sell   “shook   bees”   from   their   colonies   to   others   in   February!    For   example,   watch   Keith   Jarrett   feeding   substantial   quantities   of   pollen   supplement   to   very   strong   colonies   in   January   [ <sup>12</sup> ]—Keith   consistently   brings   very   strong   colonies   to   almonds   every   year,   and   this   year   was   no   exception!    
  Practical   application:   I’m   here   to   tell   you,   that   one   lesson   that   I’ve   learned   during   our   intense   California   drought,   is   that   those   yards   that   I   fed   with   protein   in   late   summer   before   they   started   going   downhill   went   to   almonds   much   stronger   than   those   that   I   didn’t   feed   until   fall!     Proactive   is   better   than   reactive—if   you   wait   until   colonies   are   already   going   downhill,   it   is   much   more   difficult   to   turn   them   around!  
  I’ve   often   been   accused   of   being   politically   incorrect   for   speaking   frankly.    I’d   like   to   make   amends   at   this   point   by   retiring   the   rude   and   unsympathetic   term   “PPB”   (Piss   Poor   Beekeeping).    The   fact   is   that   the   average   wintering   loss   for   the   past   few   years   has   hovered   around   30%.    So   if   you   experience   30%   losses,   you   can   now   proudly   call   yourself   an   “Average”   beekeeper!   But   what   about   those   beekeepers   who   consistently   manage   to   enjoy   lower   rates   of   winter   loss?    I   propose   that   we   call   them   “Lucky”   beekeepers,   and   the   best   of   them,   “Consistently   Lucky.”    
  Practical   application:   the   harder   those   beekeepers   work,   the   luckier   they   get!     But   there   were   clearly   “unlucky”   beekeepers   this   year—especially   the   “big   boys”   who   brought   tens   of   thousands   of   hives   from   the   drought ‐ ravaged,   and   corn ‐ converted   Midwest   to   California.    California   beekeepers   are   used   to   summer   drought.    We   have   learned   to   either   move   our   colonies   to   better   (often   irrigated)   pasture,   or   to   feed   expensive   pollen   supplements.    This   would   be   a   very   expensive   proposition   to   the   larger   operators,   with   hives   spread   all   over   the   place—a   cost   not   covered   by   current   pollination   prices.    
  W HAT   HAPPENED   TO   THE   BEES   THIS   SPRING ?   P ART   2:   THE   CONTRIBUTION   FROM   PESTICIDES  
  Randy Oliver  ScientificBeekeeping.com 
  It’s   pretty   straightforward   to   attribute   the   majority   of   colony   losses   this   winter   to   the   usual   and   aforementioned   causes,   but   a   number   of   beekeepers   are   also   pointing   the   finger   at   pesticides.    There   is   no   doubt   that   in   certain   areas   pesticides   were   a   serious   issue   to   beekeepers.    Colonies   set   back   by   pesticide   kills   may   not   fully   recover   over   the   season,   and   those   going   into   winter   with   pesticide   residues   may   go   downhill.    There   is   also   reason   to   suspect   that   pesticides   and   miticides   have   something   to   do   with   today’s   high   rates   of   queen   failure.  
  The   bees   in   some   drought ‐ stricken   areas   were   forced   to   forage   on   irrigated   and   pesticide ‐ laden   crops— the   only   place   in   which   there   was   anything   to   eat.    This   changes   the   entire   dynamics   of   pesticide   exposure,   since   residues   would   no   longer   be   diluted   by   the   pollen   and   nectar   of   non   crop   plants.    The   lack   of   good   natural   forage   also   suppresses   the   ability   of   colonies   to   deal   with   the   insult   of   those   pesticides.    And   colonies   may   be   forced,   by   necessity,   to   forage   upon   one   treated   crop   after   another,   resulting   in   multiple   exposures.     Practical   application:   under   drought   conditions,   bees   may   suffer   more   from   pesticides   than   when   times   are   good.   Due   to   the   current   high   prices   for   agricultural   commodities,   farmers   are   often   applying   pesticides   indiscriminately   as   “risk   insurance”   rather   than   due   to   actual   need.    A   chilling   recommendation   from   an   extension   entomologist   reads:     I   encourage   you   to   be   risk   averse   and   to   make   an   investment   that   will   pay   dividends   for   your   valuable   crop.    Consider   applying   [flubendiamide,   indoxacarb,   or   spinosad]   for   corn   earworm.    If   you   have   stink   bugs   and   are   in   the   [mature   plant]   stages,   you   might   want   to   tank   mix   one   of   these   products   with   a   pyrethroid.    A   tank   mix   of   a   pyrethroid   and   acephate   are   an   option,   but   will   wipe   out   all   beneficials   [ <sup>13</sup> ].    
  The   first   three   insecticides   mentioned   are   considered   to   be   “reduced   risk”   to   bees   if   residues   are   allowed   to   dry   for   a   few   hours,   but   no   mention   was   made   to   spray   at   night.   Of   the   five   insecticides   recommended   above   for   spraying   on   corn   in   tassel,   at   least   four   are   highly   toxic   to   bees   if   sprayed   during   the   day!    No   farmer   wants   to   kill   bees,   but   with   recommendations   like   this   from   state   extension   agents,   well ‐ meaning   growers   may   unwittingly   be   hurting   pollinators.  
     Bees   in   agricultural   areas   are   exposed   to   a   vast   array   of   insecticides,   miticides,   fungicides   and   surfactants—many   of   which   have   clear   links   to   colony   health   problems.    And   applications   of   new   mixes   of   chemicals   are   up.    For   example,   in   addition   to   the   neonicotinoid   seed   treatments,    granular   insecticide   soil   treatments   for   corn   in   the   Midwest   were   up   by   30%   over   the   previous   year   [ <sup>14</sup> ].    These   treatments   consist   of   combinations   of   organophosphates   and   pyrethroids.     But   I’m   not   hearing   either   the   bird   groups   or   beekeepers   even   addressing   these   treatments!    It   is   scary   to   read   the   sales   literature   for   Counter   insecticide,   the   organophosphate   terbufos   [ <sup>15</sup> ].    Growers   are   encouraged   to   apply   it   at   planting   time,   despite   the   facts   that:   1.   “Terbufos   is   highly   toxic   to   birds,   fish,   and   aquatic   invertebrates   [and   bees].    [It]   shows   significant   acute   mortalities   of   birds,   mammals,   reptiles,   and   fish   resulting   from   broadcast   application…In   the   same   study,   the   application   of   terbufos   as   a   soil ‐ incorporated   treatment   to   corn…resulted   in   acute   mortalities   to   birds   and   reptiles”   [ <sup>16</sup> ].   2.   Terbufos   is   strongly   systemic,   meaning   that   it   is   absorbed   by   the   plant   roots   and   could   be   expected   to   be   expressed   in   the   pollen   and   nectar.   3.  It   can   synergize   with   other   pesticides   since   it   ties   up   the   critical   CP450   enzymes   used   in   detoxification,   to   the   extent   that   growers   are   cautioned   that   it   can   cause   problems   to   corn   from   herbicides   [ <sup>17</sup> ].   During   drought,   certain   insect   pests   become   more   problematic,   perhaps   resulting   in   increased   exposure   to   insecticides   by   bees.    For   example,   drought   encourages   corn   leaf   aphids.    Read   this   chilling   recommendation   for   aphids   on   corn   during   tasseling   (when   bees   are   actively   foraging):   If   less   than   50%   of   pollination   has   occurred,   aphids   and   honeydew   are   covering   tassels   and   plants   are   stressed,   an   insecticide   may   be   necessary   to   ensure   adequate   pollination,   but   treatments   need   to   be   made   within   48   hours   of   tassel   emergence.   Asana   XL,   Brigade,   Capture,   Cobalt,   Dimethoate,   Lannate,   Lorsban,   or   Malathion   may   be   used   for   control   [ <sup>18</sup> ] .  
  Or   this:  
  Prolonged   drought   always   raises   the   specter   of   two ‐ spotted   spider   mite   outbreaks   in   soybeans   and   corn.   As   the   2012   drought   intensifies   in   Minnesota,   infestations   are   reaching   treatable   levels … The   only   products   that   are   recommended   for   spider   mites   in   soybean   include   insecticides   containing   chlorpyrifos,   dimethoate   and   bifenthrin [ <sup>19</sup> ].   The   names   of   the   recommended   insecticides   above   strike   fear   into   the   hearts   of   beekeepers!     Practical   application:    many   “consistently   lucky”   beekeepers   go   to   great   effort   to   allow   their   colonies   to   recover   after   exposure   to   pesticides—moving   them   to   unsprayed   areas   or   natural   forage,   or   by   immediately   feeding   protein   supplement   to   stimulate   increased   broodrearing.    Unfortunately,   such   “recovery”   areas   are   getting   harder   and   harder   to   find.  
  THE   LYNCH   MOB  
  Despite   the   fact   that   a   wide   range   of   bee ‐ toxic   insecticides   are   being   applied   (often   during   bloom)   to   corn,   soy,   sunflowers,   alfalfa,   cotton,   and   other   major   crops,   if   you   Google   anything   about   insecticide   use,   you’ll   quickly   find   that   the   blogosphere   focuses   only   upon   the   putative   link   between   a   single   class   of   insecticides—the   neonicotinoids ‐‐ and   the   demise   of   pollinators   [ <sup>20</sup> ].     People   look   at   me   incredulously   when   I   point   out   that   there   is   zero   firm   evidence   to   date   that   the   neonic   seed   treatments   are   a   serious   problem!      But   the   notion   that   all   honey   bee   problems   are   caused   by   an   insidious   new   insecticide   resonates   with   a   distrustful   public   [ <sup>21</sup> ],   and   has   firmly   established   itself   as   “common   knowledge.”    But   repeating   something   does   not   make   it   true!     “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”-- Mark Twain  Practical   application:    the   question   is,   “Are   the   neonic   seed   treatments   being   railroaded   into   a   guilty   verdict   in   the   media’s   kangaroo   court   of   public   opinion?”       One   group   recently   brought   suit   against   the   EPA   to   ban   the   use   of   the   seed   treatments   clothianidin   and   thiamethoxam   [ <sup>22</sup> ],   neither   of   which   even   make   California’s   top   100   list   of   pesticides   applied   [ <sup>23</sup> ],   nor   that   have   ever   been   demonstrated   to   harm   colonies   feeding   on   the   pollen   or   nectar   of   seed ‐ treated   plants!    A   number   of   people   have   made   up   their   minds   that   the   neonics   are   the   main   cause   of   colony   collapse,   and   it   appears   that   no   amount   of   facts   to   the   contrary   will   cause   them   to   reconsider!     
  DEBUNKING   THE   MYTHS  
  As   anyone   who   knows   me   will   tell   you,   I   am   a   stickler   for   honesty,   accuracy,   and   factuality.    I   am   concerned   about   the   amount   of   misinformation   and   speculation   going   around   about   the   neonics.    So   let’s   look   at   some   of   the   claims   vs.   the   actual   facts.  
  Arguments   against   neonic   seed   treatments   Actual   facts  
  The   neonicotinoids   have   been   “linked”   to   increased   colony   mortality.  
  In   actuality,   such   a   “link”   is   merely   an   urban   legend,   and   has   never   been   demonstrated   or   confirmed   in   any   study.   On   the   other   hand,   the   residues   of   other   classes   of   pesticides   are   more   suspect   for   causing   increased   brood   or   adult   bee   mortality   [ <sup>24</sup> ].   CCD   started   in   California   bees   in   the   winter   of   2004/2005,   prior   to   them   ever   being   exposed   to   seed treated   crops.     In   California,   Dr.   Eric   Mussen   [ <sup>25</sup> ]   determined   that    the   increased   colony   losses   were   due   to   poor    summer   forage   and   failure   of   mite   control   products   (just   as   this   last   winter).   There   is   actually   a   much   stronger   association    between   the   incidence   of   the   novel   gut   parasite   Nosema   ceranae   and   increased   colony   mortality   [ <sup>26</sup> ]. But   the   main   thing   that   has   changed   is   the    dynamics   of   the   varroa/virus   complex,   which   coincidentally   occurred   at   about   the   same   time   that   the   neonics   came   into   use.  
  The   timing   of   CCD   coincides   with   the   introduction   of   the   neonic   seed   treatments   in   2004.   But   what   else   could   have   changed   at   that   time    other   than   the   introduction   of   neonics?   
  European   countries   banned   the   neonics,   and   the    bees   recovered   after   those   bans.  
  A   few   countries   placed   temporary   suspensions   on   certain   seed   treatments   until   planting   dust   issues    were   resolved   [ <sup>27</sup> ]—only   Germany   has   one    suspension   still   in   place.    The   foliar   applications    were   not   suspended.    The   suspensions   did   not    resolve   bee   health   problems.  
  The   European   Food   Safety   Authority   recently   decide that   neonics   pose   a   threat   to   bees.  
  “The   Center   for   Regulatory   Effectiveness   (CRE)   has   recently   completed   a   Data   Quality   Act   (DQA)   Alert   on   the   …   (EFSA)   report   on   neonicotinoids   which    found   that   neonicotinoids   pose   a   risk   to   bees.   The   DQA   Alert   outlines   the   serious   deficiencies   of   the    EFSA   report   and   demonstrates   why   the   EFSA   report   violates   the   DQA…In   particular,   the   EFSA   report    failed   to   maximize   the   objectivity   of   the   data   by    failing   to   reconcile   numerous   studies   whose   conclusions   contradicted   the   findings   of   the   EFSA   report”   [ <sup>28</sup> ].  
  Several   lab   studies   have   found   that   neonics   affect   individual   bee   behavior,   longevity,   or   immunity.  
  True—although   many   studies   used   unrealistically    high   doses.    The   question   is   whether   such   artificial   studies   apply   to   actual   colonies   in   the   field.    The   numerous   field   studies   to   date   have   failed   to   find    any   link   between   seed   treatments   and   later   colony   health   issues.  
  It   is   the   seed   treatments   that   make   corn   a   problem. As   Bret   Adee   points   out   in   Buzzkill ,   corn   is   replacing   pastureland   (Fig.   4).    Corn,   as   grown   today,   is   a    virtual   “bee   desert”   (similar   to   the   way   in   which   suburban   lawns   are   green   bee   deserts).    And   it’s   not   only   the   bees   that   this   is   affecting,   the   populations   of   birds   and   other   wildlife   are   plummeting   due   to    loss   of   favorable   habitat   (see   my   blog   on   birds   and   neonics   [ <sup>29</sup> ]).  
  A   recent   survey   by   Dr.   Jerry   Bromenshenk   found    that   bees   actually   avoid   field   corn   pollen,   and   are   exposed   to   very   little   of   the   seed   treatment    residues   [ <sup>30</sup> ].  
  Numerous   independent   studies,   and   the   experiences of   stationary   beekeepers   throughout   the   Corn   Belt,   support   the   conclusion   that   colonies   can   thrive    when   surrounded   by   corn,   provided   that   there   is    some   alternative   forage   within   flight   range.   
  As   the   use   of   neonic   seed   treatments   increases,   bee   mortality   goes   up.  
  In   actuality,   colony   mortality   rates   go   up   and   down   year   to   year,   largely   dependent   upon   weather   and   varroa   mite   control.    If   the   neonics   were   to   blame    for   this   winter’s   bee   losses,   why   didn’t   they   cause   similar   losses   last   winter,   in   which   the   colony    mortality   rate   was   the   lowest   in   years?  
  French   beekeepers   also   started   seeing   problems    with   the   introduction   of   the   neonics  
  I’ve   spoken   with   beekeepers   in   France   whose    apiaries   are   in   pesticide ‐ free   areas.    They   tell   me    that   they   experience   the   same   sorts   of   colony   mortality   problems   as   do   those   in   areas   exposed   to   neonics.  
  Bees   in   the   U.S.   are   commonly   exposed   to   neonicotinoids.  
  In   the   most   recent   USDA   survey   (100   samples    across   the   country),   imidacloprid   was   only   detected   9%   of   the   samples   [ <sup>31</sup> ]   (although   I   found   some   of    the   residue   levels   alarmingly   high).    However,   the    most   common   seed   treatment,   clothianidin   (or   its   degradation   products),   was   not   detected   at   all!  
  The   above   real ‐ world   data   suggests   that   efforts   to   ban   clothianidin   as   a   seed   treatment   may   be   misplaced.    It   appears   that   imidacloprid,   especially   as   a   foliar   application,   would   be   of   more   concern.  
  Neonics   are   the   most   common   pesticides   that   bees   are   exposed   to.  
  In   the   above   survey,   other   serious   insecticides   were   more   commonly   prevalent:    chlorpyrifos   (in   20%   of   samples),   cyhalothrin   (in   7%),   and   endosulfan   (in    11%).   
  Notably,   there   was   also   a   high   prevalence   of   beekeeper ‐ applied   miticides:   fluvalinate   (in   38%),   coumaphos   (in   87%),   amitraz   (in   27%),    fenpyroximate   (in   11%),   and   thymol   (in   27%).   There   was   even   higher   exposure   to   fungicides   and   adjuvants.   The   above   survey   (over   1000   samples)   found   that    the   average   varroa   infestation   rate   in   the   U.S.   in   autumn   is   above   the   danger   level   for   virus    epidemics!     Sixty   to   100%   of   hives   are   infected   with   nosema   in   December.   
  It   is   misleading   for   the   pesticide   companies   to    blame   the   problems   on   varroa,   nosema,   or   poor   nutrition.   Summer   drought   has   historically   been   associated    with   high   winter   mortality.   Planting   dust   is   separate   issue   that   clearly   needs   to   be   remedied.    It   does   on   occasion   cause   bee   kills,    for   which   beekeepers   are   rarely   compensated.    This   situation   must   change!    All   parties   are   actively    working   on   solutions   [ <sup>32</sup> ].  
  But   didn’t   the   planting   dust   from   corn   seeding   kill   colonies   in   Ontario?  
  Bees   in   certain   agricultural   areas   tend   to   go    downhill   later   in   the   season.  
  This   has   been   observed   for   a   long   time—long    before   the   neonics.    The   question   is   which    chemicals,   chemical   synergies,   or   chemical/nutrient   interactions   are   responsible?    The   Frazier/Mullin    team   at   Penn   State   has   developed   a   protocol   for   helping   to   figure   this   out.    I   strongly   support   its   adoption   by   the   EPA   for   pesticide   risk   analysis.    
  Colonies   foraging   upon   nectar   or   pollen   of   seed ‐ treated   crops   get   poisoned.  
  Ask   yourself   this:    if   neonic   residues   were   actually    so   harmful   to   bees,   how   is   it   that   the   Canadian   beekeepers,   whose   bees   forage   largely   on   seed ‐ treated   canola,   feeding   solely   upon   a   diet   of   canola   nectar   and   pollen   with   well ‐ documented   residues    of   clothianidin,   experience   very   low   winter   losses,   despite   the   long   Canadian   winter   (so   long   as   they   control   varroa   and   nosema)?  
  And   how   is   it   that   the   vast   majority   of   beekeepers   in   the   U.S.   Corn   Belt   report   that   their   colonies    thrive   and   that   they   have   far   fewer   pesticide   issues   these   days   than   in   the   past?  
  The   neonicotinoids   are   “systemic,”   meaning   that      they     are   in   the   plants   all   the   time!  
  True,   but   this   property   is   not   unique   to   the    neonics—a   number   of   other   insecticides   also   go   systemic.    In   any   case,   with   seed   treatment,   the   concentration   of   the   insecticide   in   the   plant   is   only   high   when   the   plant   is   young—it   gets   diluted   as   the   plant   grows   (e.g.,   clothianidin   in   canola   is   at   a   level   high   enough   to   kill   aphids   for   only   about   the   first    30   days   of   growth).    
  The   only   time   that   residues   in   the   plant   matter   to   pollinators   is   when   the   mature   plant   flowers.    The   amount   of   seed   treatment   is   carefully   calibrated   so   that   the   residue   in   the   pollen   and   nectar   are   below   the   level   that   causes   demonstrable   harm   to   bees.   In   the   case   of   foliar,   drench,   or   chemigation   applications   prior   to   bloom,   there   are   greater   possibilities   for   bees   to   be   exposed   to   toxic   levels.   
  There   are   fewer   butterflies   and   pollinators   in   the    fields   these   days.  
  Not   surprising,   since   the   new   push   for   “clean    farming”   has   removed   the   host   plants   upon   which   the   butterfly   larvae   feed.    Pollinators   are   forced   to   subsist   upon   the   stretches   of   weeds   growing   along   roads   at   the   edges   of   fields.    But   surprisingly,   pollinators   may   be   abundant   there,   suggesting   that   even   though   populations   as   a   whole   are   reduced   by   habitat   conversion,   it   is   that,   rather   than   the   use   of   seed   treatments,   that   causes   the   population    declines.  
  The   evil   pesticide   companies   want   to   kill   honey    bees.  
  Give   me   a   break!    Does   anyone   truly   believe   that   anyone   wants   to   kill   honey   bees?    What   pesticide   company   would   want   the   bad   press   of   being   associated   with   killing   bees?    The   chemists   and   biologists   on   their   staffs   earnestly   work   to   develop   insecticides   that   are   bee   friendly.  
  The   EPA   is   being   derelict   in   their   duty   to   protect   pollinators.  
  I   have   spoken   at   length   with   EPA   staff,   and    reviewed   their   risk   assessments,   as   well   as   those   by,   DEFRA,   EFSA,   PMRA,   and   other   regulatory   agencies.    find   that   the   risk   assessors   have   not   overlooked   any   evidence,   are   well ‐ informed   on   the   subject   of    neonics,   and   are   justified   in   their   assessments   that   the   on ‐ the ‐ ground   evidence   (to   date)   indicates   that   neonic   seed   treatments   pose   acceptable   risk   to   pollinators.  
  We   must   all   remember   that   the   tobacco   industry    tried   to   hide   the   fact   that   nicotine   was   addictive   [ <sup>33</sup> ]!
  
  Spare   me!    Does   anyone   seriously   think   that   the    EPA   is   unaware   that   industry   executives   may    stretch   the   truth?    Of   course   the   EPA   is   skeptical   of   any   reassuring   claims   by   the   pesticide   industry—   that’s   why   they   go   over   all   studies   with   a   fine ‐ too   thed   comb!  
  This   winter’s   losses   spell   the   end   to   commercial   beekeeping.  
  The   fact   of   the   matter   is   that   many   observers   note   that   the   bee   supply   for   almonds   often   follows   a    boom ‐ bust   cycle.    Although   losses   were   high   this    year,   the   trend   for   the   last   decade   has   been   for   beekeepers   keep   ramping   up   the   supply   of   bees   for   almonds.    So   long   as   growers   are   willing   to   pay   a   profitable   rental   rate   for   colonies,   market   forces    will   encourage   the   bee   industry   to   meet   the    demand   (for   a   detailed   analysis,   see   [ <sup>34</sup> ]).  
  
  THE   PRECAUTIONARY   PRINCIPLE  
  “But,”   you   say,   “shouldn’t   we   exercise   precaution   due   to   the   lab   studies   that   find   adverse   effects   from   the   neonics?”    Look,   I   make   my   living   as   a   beekeeper,   I’m   not   out   to   sell   insecticides,   and   am   as   concerned   as   the   next   person   about   the   environment   and   the   safety   of   the   food   I   eat.    I’ve   researched   the   neonics   exhaustively,   and   addressed   them   in   several   articles   [ <sup>35</sup> ].    I   am   acutely   aware   that   there   are   suggestions   that   the   neonics   may   be   causing   insidious   effects   in   the   environment,   and   I’ve   studied   the   excellent   environmental   document   Late   Lessons   from   Early   Warnings   [ <sup>36</sup> ],   which   hammers   the   message   that   we   should   use   the   “precautionary   principle”   when   dealing   with   chemicals.    The   problem   is,   there   is   nothing   without   risk—for   example,   you   have   a   1   in   83   chance   of   being   killed   in   an   auto   accident   in   your   lifetime.    But   most   people   still   take   the   risk   of   getting   into   cars,   since   they   feel   that   the   benefit   outweighs   the   clearly   high   risk!  
  My   practical   perspective   as   both   a   scientist   and   a   beekeeper:    if   researchers   perform   lab   studies   on   any   insecticide,   they   will   find   that   there   are   all   kinds   of   negative   effects   upon   bees—this   should   be   pretty   obvious,   since   insecticides   are   specifically   designed   to   harm   insects!    However,   the   majority   of   these   studies   are   taken   out   of   the   context   of   full   colonies   under   field   conditions,   where   bees   fly   free   and   choose   the   flowers   upon   which   they   forage.    The   evidence   to   date   supports   the   contention   that   the   neonics,   properly   used   as   seed   treatments ,   are   indeed   an   improvement   over   other   insecticide   options.  
  As   Dr.   Eric   Mussen   succinctly   notes:  
  Nobody’s   really   been   able   to   show   that   [the   neonicotinoids]   are   more   problematic   than   the   rest   [of   the   pesticides   to   which   bees   are   exposed]   [ <sub>37</sub> ] .   Far   be   it   from   me   to   suggest   that   the   neonics   (or   any   other   pesticides)   are   harmless!    But   consider   this—if   the   neonic   seed   treatments   were   indeed   as   harmful   as   some   make   them   out   to   be,   you’d   think   that   after   a   decade   of   intense   study   that   at   least   one   researcher   could   have   come   up   with   a   single   solid   piece   of   field   evidence   against   them!  
  Let’s   do   a   thought   experiment.    Why   doesn’t   someone   simply   put   a   bunch   of   healthy   hives   into   the   middle   of   seed   treated   crops   and   see   whether   they   die   afterward?    Oh,   I   forgot—this   experiment   has   already   been   run   by   thousands   of   beekeepers   year   after   year   in   the   Corn   Belt   and   the   Canadian   prairie!    And   those   beekeepers   have   invited   me   to   look   at   their   colonies,   sent   me   photos   of   colonies   stacked   head   high   with   honey   supers,   and   bragged   about   their   high   winter   survival!  
  Some   will   argue   'til   they're   blue   in   the   face,   but   the   fact   remains   that   virtually   every   beekeeper   that   I've   spoken   with   in   the   Corn   Belt   and   in   canola   areas   feels   that   the   seed   treatments   are   not   a   problem   [ <sup>38</sup> ].    In   fact,   most   tell   me   that   this   is   the   best   it's   ever   been   as   far   as   bees   and   pesticides!     Common   sense:    I   just   don’t   get   what   is   so   hard   to   understand   about   the   reality   that   there   are   thousands   of   colonies   thriving   year   after   year   in   areas   of   intense   seed   treatment?    To   any   reasonable   person   it   would   suggest   that   the   treatments   are   causing   little   noticeable   harm   other   than   the   occasional   planting   dust   kill,   which   I   have   repeatedly   stated   is   a   problem   that   needs   to   be   corrected!   <fig rect=[63.0, 47.77500915527344, 176.09922790527344, 61.755008697509766]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.002471923828125, 80.50498962402344, 539.1838989257812, 159.2266845703125]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 106.08001708984375, 89.23289489746094, 184.6673583984375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[511.0799865722656, 492.7649230957031, 513.562255859375, 503.7449035644531]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.999969482421875, 511.5284729003906, 560.0897827148438, 616.062744140625]></fig>
  <fig rect=(110.69999694824219, 197.10000610351562, 511.3800048828125, 501.1199951171875)></fig> <fig rect=[500.7598876953125, 359.2650146484375, 503.2421875, 370.2449951171875]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 378.0284729003906, 560.4830322265625, 431.4559631347656]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.991668701171875, 440.6850280761719, 555.6210327148438, 513.3968505859375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[63.0, 528.0, 99.79049682617188, 540.0]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.991607666015625, 554.7449340820312, 559.2554321289062, 627.462646484375]></fig>
  <fig rect=[62.9930419921875, 641.9232788085938, 559.5203247070312, 730.1226196289062]></fig>
  <fig rect=(84.5999984741211, 44.94000244140625, 500.760009765625, 367.5)></fig> Every   field   study   that   I’ve   seen   for   canola   also   supports   the   conclusion   that   the   seed ‐ treatments   are   safe   for   bees.    I   joined   other   beekeepers   and   regulators   in   observing   a   large ‐ scale   study   of   seed ‐ treated   canola   in   Canada   [ <sup>41</sup> ].    Canola   (or   rapeseed)   is   likely   the   best   test   crop,   since   bees   eagerly   (and   virtually   exclusively)   forage   upon   it   for   both   pollen   and   nectar,   meaning   that   every   bit   of   their   food   supply   contains   contain   easily   verifiable   residues   of   the   insecticides.    The   preliminary   results   indicate   that   the   clothianidin   seed   treatment   did   not   harm   the   colonies   [ <sup>42</sup> ].  
  Another   recent   independent   long ‐ term   field   study   in   Poland   [ <sup>43</sup> ]   came   to   the   same   conclusion.    In   it,   the   researchers   followed   50   colonies   for   more   than   two   years   under   field   conditions   as   they   foraged   on   five   different   large   fields   of   oilseed   rape   treated   with   various   combinations   of   five   different   neonicotinoids   applied   by   seed   treatment   and   spraying.    Pollen   and   nectar   samples   were   taken,   and   demonstrated   that   the   bees   were   clearly   exposed   to   normal   residues   of   the   insecticides   (there   was   also   additional   exposure   to   other   common   agricultural   pesticides).    The   colonies   were   monitored   for   health,   brood,   strength,   nosema,   viruses,   and   winter   survival,   and   compared   to   two   control   apiaries   set   in   an   area   free   of   the   crop.    The   results?  
  During   the   time   from   the   placing   of   the   colonies   on   the   rape   fields   until   wintering,   the   colonies   developed   properly   in   all   groups…   All   colonies   overwintered   properly…   In   both   years,   during   the   period   of   being   placed   in   the   oilseed   rape   fields   as   well   as   after   being   moved   to   the   stationary   apiary,   none   of   the   groups   showed   disturbances   in   development   or   functioning.   Following   a   paper   that   suggested   that   the   seed   treatments   would   impair   bumblebee   colonies’   ability   to   rear   queens,   DEFRA   performed   a   common ‐ sense   field   study   last   year   [ <sup>44</sup> ].    Their   findings:   …the   study   has   shown   that   bumble   bee   colonies   remained   viable   and   productive   in   the   presence   of   the   neonicotinoid   pesticides   under   these   field   conditions…The   study   underlines   the   importance   of   taking   care   in   extrapolating   laboratory   toxicology   studies   to   the   field,   as   well   as   the   great   need   of   further   studies   under   natural   conditions.  
  Sunflowers  
  Some   beekeepers   report   that   their   colonies   later   crashed   after   they   chased   sunflowers   last   summer   for   honey.    One   must   keep   in   mind   that   sunflowers   are   not   a   natural   food   for   honey   bees,   and   provide   only   poor ‐ quality,   nutritionally ‐ inadequate   pollen   [ <sup>45</sup> ].    But   the   main   problem   with   putting   bees   on   sunflowers   may   be   related   to   the   fact   that   sunflowers   are   a   native   plant—meaning   that   there   are   a   number   of   native   insects   that   evolved   to   feed   upon   it:  
  Maximum   seed   yields   often   require   the   use   of   insecticides   to   protect   the   crop   from   insect   competitors.    Unfortunately,   many   of   the   major   insect   pests   of   sunflower   attack   the   crop   when   it   is   flowering.   Thus,   insecticides   used   to   control   the   pest   also   harm   pollinating   bees   [ <sub>46</sub> ].    If   sunflowers   are   the   only   forage   available,   colonies   may   eventually   go   downhill,   due   to   the   one ‐ two   punch   of   poor   pollen   nutrition   coupled   with   insecticide   exposure.    And   which   pesticides   would   those   be?    One   scary   list ‐‐  Asana   XL,   Baythroid,   endosulfan,   Furadan   ,   Lorsban   ,   methyl   or   ethyl   parathion,   ,   Proaxis,   Scout   X ‐ TRA,   Sevin,   Warrior,   Mustang   Max,   Declare,   Cobalt,   Yuma,   Delta   Gold,   and   Grizzly   Z   [ <sup>47</sup> ]!     Note   that   none   of   the   above   are   neonics,   other   than   seed   treatments   for   wireworms.    Surprisingly,   field   evidence   indicates   that   the   seed   treatments   only   “stun”   the   wireworms   for   a   while   [ <sup>48</sup> ],   which   certainly   raises   the   question   as   to   how   harmful   they   might   be   to   bees   months   later   when   the   plants   flower!     I   will   return   to   sunflowers   below.  
  BE   CAREFUL   WHAT   YOU   ASK   FOR!  
  Allow   me   to   assure   you   that   I   am   no   pitchman   for   neonics   or   any   other   insecticide—the   typical   farmer   practices   far   too   little   integrated   pest   management,   and   applies   far   too   many   pesticides!    All   insecticides   (and   several   fungicides   and   adjuvants)   cause   problems   to   pollinators—the   neonics   are   no   exception.    Any   systemic   insecticide   has   the   potential   to   harm   bees   when   applied   as   foliar   applications,   by   chemigation,   or   to   flowering   trees,   but   it   there   is   no   compelling   evidence   that   the   neonics   are   any   worse   than   the   alternatives   in   most   applications.    On   the   contrary,   there   is   quite   a   bit   of   evidence   that   they   may   often   be   “safer”   (“reduced   risk”).  
  If   the   neonic   seed   treatments   were   banned,   it’s   not   as   though   all   agriculture   is   suddenly   going   to   go   pesticide   free—only   about   1%   of   U.S.   cropland   is   registered   as   “organic”!    We   must   consider   the   likely   alternatives.   The   products   that   farmers   would   then   use   to   control   insects   would   need   to   be   sprayed   all   over   the   cropland—we’d   then   be   back   to   the   problem   that   the   bulk   of   sprayed   insecticides   go   into   the   environment   without   ever   hitting   the   intended   pest!  
  I   hear   from   knowledgeable   beekeepers   that   worse   than   in   previous   years,   some   of   the   new   formulations   of   the   spray ‐ applied   insecticides   [ <sup>49</sup> , <sup>50</sup> , <sup>51</sup> ]   can   really   knock   the   snot   out   of   bees!    One   large   beekeeper   found   his   hives   already   dead   before   moving   them   away   from   the   fields.    Again,   this   was   not   a   neonicotinoid   issue.   Practical   application:   no   one   is   saying   that   the   neonics   are   “harmless.”    The   question   is   whether   they   are   better   or   worse   than   the   alternatives .  
  THE   EFFECT   OF   DROUGHT  
  Let’s   discuss   some   of   the   problems   (or   suspected   problems)   with   the   neonics   last   season.    The   record   warm   and   dry   spring   appeared   to   exacerbate   corn   planting   dust   issues   (corn   seeds   are   the   worst   offender   due   to   their   non   spherical   shape).    Beekeepers   in   some   areas   of   the   Corn   Belt,   the   East   Coast,   and   in   Ontario   suffered   from   confirmed   (in   at   least   some   of   the   cases)   planting   dust   kills   (although   many   went   on   to   make   good   honey   crops   after   their   colonies   recovered).    The   final   analysis   from   Ontario   is   not   yet   completed,   but   dry   soil   conditions   and   an   early   clover   bloom   likely   contributed   to   the   problem.    Regulators   and   the   seed   companies   are   working   on   solutions   to   the   problem   [ <sup>52</sup> ].    Still,   IMHO   it   is   unacceptable   to   ask   beekeepers   to   bear   the   burden   of   bee   kills   without   compensation,   and   no   one   could   blame   the   affected   beekeepers   for   being   pissed!  
  Drought ‐ stressed   plants  
  There   are   a   number   of   advantages   to   the   neonic   seed   treatments.    Besides   their   safety   to   the   farmer   and   to   most   wildlife,   there   is   virtually   no   way   for   the   farmer   to   misapply   them!    The   timing   of   application   is   only   at   planting   time   (when   bees   normally   have   little   interest   in   the   bare   fields),   and   the   dose   is   determined   by   the   seed ‐ treating   company.    This   means   that   the   applicator   can’t   be   tempted   to   apply   at   the   wrong   time,   or   to   over   apply   too   strong   a   dose   (however,   their   excessive   near   universal   use   can   be   expected   to   accelerate   the   development   of   resistant   pests).  
  That   said,   beekeeper   Bret   Adee   brought   an   interesting   question   to   my   attention:   the   dose   of   seed ‐ applied   systemic   insecticides   (whether   neonic   or   other)   is   based   upon   the   dilution   factor   as   the   plant   grows,   so   that   the   residues   in   nectar   and   pollen   will   be   reduced   to   below   the   “no   observed   adverse   effects   level.”    But   what   happens   during   drought,   when   the   water ‐ stressed   plants   only   grow   knee   high   before   desperately   flowering?    There   would   be   far   less   plant   biomass   in   which   to   dilute   the   insecticide   (assuming   that   drought ‐ stressed   plants   absorb   the   same   amount   from   the   seed   treatment).  
  Certain   plants   (including   sunflowers   and   canola)   are   known   to   “hyperaccumulate”   toxic   metals   [ <sup>53</sup> ],   perhaps   more   so   during   drought.    Could   this   also   be   the   case   with   systemic   insecticides?    Something   that’s   been   stuck   in   the   back   of   my   mind   is   that   Bonmantin   [ <sup>54</sup> ]   found   that   the   concentration   of   imidacloprid   first   drops   in   sunflower   plant   tissue   as   it   grows,   and   then   reconcentrates   in   the   flower   heads.    
  It   occurs   to   me   that   the   translocation   of   systemic   insecticides   is   generally   studied   in   plants   grown   under   “normal”   conditions.    I’d   very   much   like   to   see   data   for   residues   in   pollen   and   nectar   from   seed ‐ treated   plants   grown   under   drought.    Had   we   thought   of   this   earlier,   we   could   have   collected   pollen   and   nectar   samples   from   drought ‐ stressed   plants   last   summer.    I’m   currently   trying   to   track   down   any   data   or   samples   from   such   plants—if   any   reader   has   any   such   sample   analyses,   please   let   me   know!  
  Practical   application:    the   above   hypothesis   is   speculative,   but   we   need   actual   data   from   drought ‐ stressed   plants   to   see   whether   such   an   effect   occurs.    If   so,   it   would   need   to   be   taken   into   consideration   for   the   registration   of   seed   treatment   products!      Once   planting   was   completed   and   the   drought   took   its   toll,   the   reports   that   I’ve   heard   are   that   soybean   honey   saved   a   lot   of   bee   operations   this   season,   right   in   the   middle   of   treated   corn/soy   farmland.    In   this   case,   seed   treatment   with   neonicotinoids   may   have   been   a   blessing   to   beekeepers:   
  The   benefits   of   [seed   treatment]   not   only   include   the   early ‐ season   disease   control   but   also   suppression   of   soybean   aphids   for   quite   a   ways   into   the   growing   season.   With   it,   we   typically   make   only   one   foliar   insecticide   application   for   aphid   control,   usually   in   August,   instead   of   two   applications   when   [treatment]   isn’t   used .   In   2012,   with   the   extremely   dry   conditions   in   mid ‐ season,   there   wasn’t   as   much   of   an   aphid   problem,   and   we   treated   just   300   acres   of   soybeans…Last   year   we   sprayed   closer   to   30,000   acres   for   aphids   [ <sup>55</sup> ] .  
  On   the   other   hand,   some   beekeepers   on   alfalfa   or   cotton   got   hit   hard   by   other   classes   of   insecticides.    A   hit   from   a   pesticide   application   can   lead   to   poor   subsequent   colony   performance,   queen   failure,   dwindling,   or   winter   collapse.    ABJ   published   an   excellent   series   of   articles   on   pesticides   by   Drs.   Barbara   and   Eric   Erickson   in   1983;   Editor   Joe   Graham   has   graciously   granted   me   permission   to   post   copies   of   those   articles   to   my   website   [ <sup>56</sup> ]—I   strongly   suggest   any   beekeepers   interested   in   pesticide   issues   read   them!    In   the   second   article,   the   authors   discuss   both   the   problems   with   systemic   insecticides   and   of   sublethal   effects—note   that   these   articles   were   written   long   before   the   introduction   of   the   neonics!  
  ACTIONS   TO   TAKE  
  An   anti ‐ pesticide   group,   along   with   a   handful   of   beekeepers,   recently   filed   suit   against   the   EPA   [ <sup>57</sup> ],   calling   for   an   immediate   ban   on   the   two   most   common   neonicotinoid   seed   treatments,   despite   the   easily ‐ verifiable   fact   that   hundreds   of   thousands   of   colonies   thrive   in   the   midst   of   seed ‐ treated   corn,   soy,   and   canola!    To   me,   this   suit   smacks   of   being   some   sort   of   well ‐ orchestrated   publicity   stunt,   and   does   not   serve   the   interests   of   either   beekeepers   or   environmentalism.    Worse,   it   now   gives   the   powerful   farm   lobby   cause   to   label   beekeepers   as   “radical”   enemies.      We   don’t   want   this   battle:   do   we   really   want   to   take   on   the   farm   lobby   by   backing   them   into   a   corner?    The   French   beekeepers   took   a   similar   case   against   fipronil   all   the   way   to   their   supreme   court   and   lost   [ <sup>58</sup> , <sup>59</sup> ‐‐ worth   reading].    Agriculture   is   already   positioning   itself   for   a   fight   [ <sup>60</sup> , <sup>61</sup> , <sup>62</sup> ].    Think   about   it—the   EPA   lives   in   fear   of   a   conservative   congress   slashing   their   funding.    Does   anyone   really   think   that   they   are   going   to   go   against   the   agricultural   lobby   without   unimpeachable   evidence?    We   should   also   think   twice   before   calling   for   a   ban   on   the   seed   treatments—the   alternatives   are   not   pretty!  
  It   disturbs   me   to   hear   industry   executives   and   lawyers   stretching   the   truth   or   misrepresenting   data.    It   disturbs   me   even   more   to   hear   my   fellow   environmentalists   and   beekeepers   doing   so!    If   we   wish   to   maintain   credibility,   we   should   hold   ourselves   to   a   higher   standard.    The   question   we   must   ask   ourselves   the   way   in   which   we   wish   to   have   pesticide   regulation   decisions   made:   1.   By   the   EPA   (the   Environmental   Protection   Agency),   whose   risk   assessors   carefully   study   and   weigh   all   available   research   and   evidence   in   order   to   make   objective   and   rational   decisions,   or   2.     To   have   it   decided   instead   by   impassioned,   fearful,   and   often   misinformed   advocacy   groups   who   hire   lawyers   and   pressure   politicians   who   know   little   about   the   subject?  
  We   depend   upon   the   EPA   to   strike   a   balance   between   the   availability   of   cheap   food   and   profitability   for   those   who   provide   it,   versus   the   risks   to   human   and   environmental   health   and   safety.    It   is   good   to   have   activists   on   both   sides   of   the   issues   (industry   and   the   anti ‐ pesticide   groups)   to   keep   the   EPA   informed.    But   I   don’t   feel   that   either   of   those   groups   should   be   telling   the   EPA   which   pesticides   to   register   or   to   ban!    Let   the   regulators   do   their   job!     Rather   than   wasting   EPA’s   funding   to   fight   frivolous   lawsuits,   there   are   more   productive   actions   that   we   can   take:   1.   Help   the   EPA   to   do   its   job   by   filing   “adverse   effects   incident   reports”   if   you   observe   a   problem   due   to   pesticides   [ <sup>63</sup> ].    EPA   is   begging   beekeepers   to   do   this!    Unless   they   have   documented   reports   of   pesticide   problems,   their   hands   are   tied   as   to   restricting   the   uses   of   those   pesticides!   2.   Support   the   National   Pollinator   Defense   Fund   [ <sup>64</sup> ].    Our   industry   is   currently   represented   by   a   reasoned   and   knowledgeable   group   of   (mostly)   beekeepers.    (Challenge   to   the   pesticide   companies:    why   don’t   you   stand   behind   the   safety   of   your   products   and   donate?    The   NPDF   is   about   ensuring   that   your   pesticides   are   properly   applied,   so   there   would   be   no   conflict   of   interest).   3.   If   your   local   state   lead   agency   is   not   actively   investigating   bee   kills   or   enforcing   pesticide   regulations,   then   use   the   local   media   to   embarrass   them   into   action!    4.   Keep   pressure   on   the   EPA   to   resolve   corn   planting   dust   problems.    Here’s   a   wild   idea:    I’m   not   sure   of   the   exact   figures,   but   let’s   say   that   90%   of   the   95   million   acres   of   corn   is   grown   from   neonic ‐ treated   seed.    If   the   states   were   to   levy   a   surcharge   of   50   cents   per   acre   (neonic   seed   treatment   adds   about   $12   per   acre   to   seed   costs),   they   could   collect   over   $42   million   each   year   to   fund   a   pool   from   which   to   indemnify   the   occasional   beekeeper   who   suffers   a   confirmed   kill   from   planting   dust!  
  5.   Tell   Congress   that   we’d   like   to   see   wording   added   to   the   Federal   Insecticide,   Fungicide,   and   Rodenticide   Act   (FIFRA)   to   specifically   protect   pollinators.    Currently,   such   protection   is   nebulous   (although   the   EPA   is   acutely   aware   of   pollinator   issues):   “The   Administrator   shall   register   a   pesticide   if…   when   used   in   accordance   with   widespread   and   commonly   recognized   practice   it   will   not   generally   cause   unreasonable   adverse   effects   on   the   environment.”    Unless   there   is   specific   wording   to   protect   pollinators,   bee   kills   may   not   be   considered   to   be   “unreasonable”!   6.   We   need   far   more   independent   field   studies   to   determine   which   pesticides   and   application   practices   are   actually   causing   harm   to   pollinators.    For   pesticides   in   question,   keep   pressure   on   the   EPA   to   require   additional   field   trials   to   demonstrate   whether   they   are   indeed   safe   for   pollinators   under   field   conditions.    I’d   like   to   see   the   establishment   of   monitoring   apiaries   (and   patches   of   untilled   land)   in   representative   agricultural   areas   nationwide,   with   the   hives   in   each   apiary   to   be   carefully   managed   by   independent   parties.    Such   apiaries   and   sites   could   then   be   closely   monitored   each   summer   to   see   whether   honey   bees   and   other   pollinators   are   able   to   survive   local   pesticide   practices.    
  7.   Give   farmers   workable   options!    Disseminate   and   promote   bee ‐ friendly   agricultural   practices   that   don’t   hurt   the   farmers’   bottom   line.    For   example,   by   adopting   IPM   practices,   Arizona   cotton   growers   reduced   insecticide   spraying   from   12.5   times   a   season   to   only   1.3   times   (cutting   insecticide   use   twentyfold),   while   using   more   environmentally ‐ friendly   insecticides   [ <sup>65</sup> ]!    Another   recent   study   in   Iowa   found   that   adding   additional   clover   or   alfalfa   rotations   in   corn/soy   farmland   was   equally   profitable,   improved   the   soil,   used   less   energy,   used   far   less   pesticides,   and   decreased   water   pollution   [ <sup>66</sup> ].    
  8.   Business   and   agriculture   respond   to   consumer   demand.    Consumer   demand   stopped   most   dairymen   from   injecting   their   cows   with   the   hormone   BST.    Consumers   could   do   the   same   by   demanding   pasture ‐ fed   beef   and   dairy   (which   would   create   more   pollinator   forage)!    I’d   also   like   to   see   the   expansion   of   consumer   choices   (other   than   organic   certification)   that   reward   farmers   who   manage   their   lands   to   the   benefit   of   wildlife   and   pollinators.    For   ideas,   see   [ <sup>67</sup> , <sup>68</sup> , <sup>69</sup> ].    
  BOTTOM   LINE  
  In   conclusion,   it   appears   that   a   perfect   storm   of   a   preceding   exceptionally   warm   winter,   followed   by   serious   drought   across   the   country,   the   lack   of   good   mite   control,   a   high   prevalence   of   pathogens,   and   an   unexpected   California   chill   in   the   orchards   prior   to   bloom,   resulted   in   an   unusual   degree   of   colony   losses.    In   other   words,   rather   than   one   specific   cause,   there   were   simply   not   enough   of   the   good   things,   and   too   many   of   the   bad   things.   I   don’t   see   evidence   that   pesticides   were   the   major   factor   in   the   shortage   of   bees   in   almonds   this   winter,   although,   as   usual,   a   number   of   individual   beekeepers   on   certain   crops   certainly   took   serious   hits.  
  And   how   about   the   fear   that   there   won’t   be   enough   bees   for   almond   pollination   next   year?    Beekeepers   have   already   told   almond   growers   to   expect   higher   pollination   prices   next   year   (especially   since   California   is   again   going   into   serious   drought,   and   beekeepers   will   be   forced   to   invest   extra   money   in   feeding   their   hives).    Most   every   beekeeper   I   know   is   madly   making   increase   right   now   in   anticipation   of   higher   pollination   prices   next   season.    The   fact   of   the   matter   is   that   should   conditions   allow   beekeepers   to   successfully   rebuild   their   numbers   (following   the   typical   swings   of   our   boom/bust   cycle),   there   could   possibly   even   be   a   glut   of   bees   for   almonds   next   winter!    
    REFERENCES     <sub>1</sub>   http://www.frequ <sub>2</sub>   http://www.ars.u  
  <sub>1</sub>   http://www.frequency.com/video/dan-rather-reports-buzzkill/87705620/-/YouTube   <sub>2</sub>   http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2012/120531.htm  and California DPR.  
  <sub>3</sub>   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php  
  <sub>4</sub>  Wright, CK &amp;  MC Wimberly  (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands  and wetlands.   https://www.motherjones.com/files/pnas201215404_nwow5w1.pdf   <sub>5</sub>   http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/honey_bees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Re port.pdf   <sub>6</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/   <sub>7</sub>  vanEngelsdorp, D, et al (2013) Idiopathic brood disease syndrome and queen events as precursors of  colony mortality in migratory beekeeping operations in the eastern United States.  Preventive Veterinary  Medicine 108(2-3): 225-233.   http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587712002656   <sub>8</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18a-colony-collapse-revisited/   <sub>9</sub>   http://almondinsights.com/692 ,  http://agfax.com/almonds/2013/reports/03042013-almonds-web.htm   <sub>10</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18a-colony-collaspse-revisited/   <sub>11</sub>   http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/honey_bees/downloads/2010-2011- Limited_Survey_Report.pdf   <sub>12</sub>   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6B5qm2ut18 ,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYbLbhZXizY   <sub>13</sub>   http://www.nccrops.com/2012/07/27/insecticide-recommendations-for-corn-earworm-in-soybeans/   <sub>14</sub>   http://www.agriview.com/news/crop/corn-soil-insecticide-use-up-dramatically-to-combat-widespread- rootworm/article_5d09decc-5b40-11e2-b485-001a4bcf887a.html   <sub>15</sub>   http://www.amvac-chemical.com/products/documents/Counter20G%20Tech-Sell%20Sheet%20- %202013.pdf   <sub>16</sub>   http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/insect-mite/propetamphos-zetacyperm/terbufos/insect-prof- terbufos.html  
  <sub>17</sub>   http://www.lewishybrids.com/PDF/3-5-2013Agronomic+ALERT+- +Interaction+between+herbicides+insecticides+corn.pdf   <sub>18</sub>   http://pest.ca.uky.edu/EXT/Recs/ENT16-Field%20corn.pdf   <sub>19</sub>   http://www.soybeans.umn.edu/crop/insects/spider_mites.htm  
  
  <sub>20</sub>   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/calamity-for-our-most-beneficent- insect.html?nl=todaysheadlines&amp;emc=edit_th_20130407&amp;_r=0   <sub>21</sub>   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/calamity-for-our-most-beneficent-insect.html?_r=0   <sub>22</sub>   http://www.panna.org/press-release/beekeepers-and-public-interest-groups-sue-epa-over-bee-toxic- pesticides   <sub>23</sub>   http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur10rep/top_100_ais_lbs10.pdf   <sub>24</sub>   http://www.extension.org/pages/60318/pesticides-and-their-involvement-in-colony-collapse-disorder   <sub>25</sub>  Mussen, EC (2006) Chaotic almond pollination.   http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/JanFeb2006.pdf   <sub>26</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18e-colony-collapse-revisited-genetically-modified-plants/  
  <sub>23</sub>   http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur10rep/top_100_ais_lbs10.pdf   <sub>24</sub>   http://www.extension.org/pages/60318/pesticides-and-their-involvement- <sub>25</sub>  Mussen, EC (2006) Chaotic almond pollination.   http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/JanFeb2006.pdf   <sub>26</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18e-colony-collapse-revis <sub>27</sub>   http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html  
   
  <sub>28</sub>   http://www.thecre.com/oira_pd/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DQA-Alert-EU-Commission-Ban-on- Neonicotinoids-4-10.pdf   <sub>29</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/home/news-and-blogs/   30 Henderson, CB, JJ Bromenshenk, DL Fischer (2013)  Clothianidin exposure levels from bee-collected  pollen and nectar in seed-treated corn and canola plantings.  Proceedings of the American Bee Research  Conference .   <sub>31</sub>   http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/honey_bees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Re port.pdf  
  <sub>29</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/home/news-and-blogs/  
  Conference .  
  <sub>32</sub>   http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=534   <sub>33</sub>   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/timelines/april94.html   <sub>34</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/2012-almond-pollination-update/   <sub>35</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science/ ,  http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/ ,  http://scientificbeekeeping.com/testing-of-bee-feed-syrups-for-neonicotinoid-residues/  
  <sub>36</sub>   http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2   <sub>37</sub>   http://www.sciencefriday.com/playlist/#play/segment/9088   <sub>38</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/   <sub>39</sub>   http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps   <sub>40</sub>   http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/   <sub>41</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-new-large-scale-trial-of-clothianidin/  
  <sub>42</sub>   http://www.producer.com/daily/ontario-field-study-finds-no-link-between-seed-treatments-bee-deaths/   <sub>43</sub>  Pohorecka, K, et al (2013) Residues of neonicotinoid insecticides in bee collected plant materials from  oilseed rape crops and their effect on bee colonies.  Journal of Apicultural Science 56(2): 115-134.  http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jas.2012.56.issue-2/v10289-012-0029-3/v10289-012-0029- 3.xml?format=INT   <sub>44</sub>   http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/scienceResearch/scienceCapabilities/chemicalsEnvironment/documents/report PS2371Mar13.pdf   <sub>45</sub>   http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/20334/Nicolson_Chemical(2012).pdf?sequence=1   <sub>46</sub>   http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/aginfo/entomology/entupdates/Sunflower/a1331sunflowerhandbook.pdf  
  <sub>47</sub>   http://www.sunflowernsa.com/growers/approved-chemicals/insecticides-test/   <sub>48</sub>   http://www.mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=151958&amp;p=41   <sub>49</sub>   http://www.sunflowernsa.com/growers/approved-chemicals/insecticides-test/   <sub>50</sub>   http://www.farmassist.com/agriedge/images/Resource_PDFs/Soybean/Warrior_Zeon.pdf   <sub>51</sub>   http://www2.dupont.com/Production_Agriculture/en_US/assets/downloads/pdfs/K-09315.pdf  
  <sub>52</sub>   http://www.ontariograinfarmer.ca/MAGAZINE.aspx?aid=534   <sub>53</sub>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hyperaccumulators  
   
  <sub>54</sub>  Bonmatin, JM, et al (2005) Behaviour of Imidacloprid in Fields.  Toxicity for Honey Bees.   In  Environmental chemistry: green chemistry and pollutants in ecosystems  pp. 483-49.   http://www.buzzaboutbees.net/support-files/bonmatin2005behaviour-of-imidacloprid-in-fields.pdf   <sub>55</sub>   http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/seed/do-soy-seed-treatments-pay?page=2   <sub>56</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/historical-pesticide-overview/  
  <sub>57</sub>   http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press ‐ releases/1911/cfs ‐ beekeepers ‐ and ‐ public ‐ interest ‐ groups ‐ sue ‐ epa ‐ over ‐ bee ‐ toxic ‐ pesticides   <sub>58</sub>   http://www.theworldlawgroup.com/files/file/docs/Soulier_health_environment_June_2012.pdf   <sub>59</sub>   http://www.soulier-avocats.com/upload/documents/Soulier_health_environment_september_2010_F.pdf   <sub>60</sub>   http://westernfarmpress.com/government/pesticide-battle-over-honey-bee-health-under-way?page=1   <sub>61</sub>   http://westernfarmpress.com/management/total-ag-pesticide-elimination-sought-radicals  
  <sub>62</sub>   http://www.neonicreport.com/home/project-compass/   <sub>63</sub>   http://scientificbeekeeping.com/pesticide-incident-reporting/   <sub>64</sub>   http://pollinatordefense.org/site/   <sub>65</sub>   http://cals.arizona.edu/apmc/docs/IPM_Delivers.pdf   <sub>66</sub>   Davis, AS, et al (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balanc environmental health.  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2 <sub>67</sub>   http://www.pcl.org/pcl_files/5_Wildlife_Habitat_Farmland.pdf   <sub>68</sub>   http://pfspbees.org/   <sub>69</sub>   http://www.nwf.org/CertifiedWildlifeHabitat/UserAccount/SignIn  
  <sub>66</sub>   Davis, AS, et al (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and  environmental health.  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0047149  
  <sub>68</sub>   http://pfspbees.org/  
  