Few honey bee predators can elicit a level of fear
and trepidation in a beekeeper as much as a bear.
Be it black, brown or of the grizzly variety, a bear
can reduce a tall, well-organized, proud hive into a
chaotic mess of splintered wood, mangled combs,
and dead bees very quickly. In general, bears live in
wooded areas and tend not to wander around too
much in open fields, especially where there is a lot
of human activity. Bear problems can be especially
acute during Autumn when bears in northern climates
are feeding heavily in preparation for Winter
hibernation.
One of the earliest forms of protecting an apiary from
bears was to use a physical enclosure of some kind,
such as a stone wall. The inside of the wall would
contain recessed areas, in which woven skep hives
(also called 'bee boles') could be placed. Today,
permanent fences, such as those made of chain link
fencing, may enclose an apiary in order to provide bear
protection. A common alternative popular in our
modern society and for those looking for a movable, or
temporary solution, is the electric fence. Photo
voltaic technology allows self-charging solar-electric
fences to be set up in hard to reach remote locations.
Some beekeepers recommend hanging a slice of bacon
from one of the hot wires so that when a bear first
approaches the fence, they will tend to reach out and
touch the bacon with either their nose or their tongue.
The idea being that by initially touching the electric
fence with one of these two sensitive and wet parts of
its anatomy, the resulting shock will be painful enough
to prevent the bear from continuing to harbor any
curiosity about what is beyond the fence.
A less pricey, low-tech approach involves creating a bed
of sharp thorns that deters a hungry bear in much the
same way that is recommended for use against skunks.
Pieces of plywood containing nails or screws long
enough to protrude between one-half and one inch and
embed-ded on one side of the board at two- to three-
inch intervals create a powerful, low-cost, low-
maintenance deterrent when compared to an electric
fence. The boards should be large and placed all
around the hive so that a curious bear will not miss
them when approaching from any direction. I have also
heard of some beekeepers using carpet rem-nants in
place of plywood. Although carpeting has the advantage
of not warping like wood does, care must be taken to
use thick enough carpeting to hold the nails or screws
with enough rigidity that they will not be easily pushed
over.
New York beekeeper Chris Harp told me a story about a
fellow beekeeper who had moved some hives into an
apiary but was in a hurry, so he did not take the time
to remove the moving straps that were around each
hive. Before he had a chance to return and remove
the straps, a bear visited his beeyard. In an attempt to
gain access to the delectable delights stored within the
hives, the bear pushed the colonies over. However,
because they were strapped, the supers did not
separate and the hives did not break open when they
hit the ground. As a result, the bear was not able to
easily gain access to the combs so it left the hives
alone. The beekeeper simply returned the hives to their
stands and realizing their value as a bear deterrent left
the straps on. Sometime later after one of the first
light snow falls of the season had covered the ground,
the beekeeper was visiting the yard and noticed bear
tracks that went right through his apiary but none of
the hives had been touched. Apparently the bear
remembered his previous unsuccessful attempt to
ransack the hives and had simply walked by them
leaving them unmolested.
I recently had the chance to test the idea of using
straps as a bear deterrent on some bees that were
moved up into the Green Mountain National Forest
wilderness areas Northeast of Middlebury, Vermont.
A bear was known to be active in the area raiding
peoples bird feeders. Sure enough, within two weeks
something visited my apiary and knocked over boxes
of bees, but because they were strapped, no damage
was done! In order to avoid having my straps
accidentally torn or cut by a bear’s sharp teeth or
claws, I used metal straps based on the kind that
beekeepers in Australia often use. Australian
beekeepers tend to move their hives around a lot
following the various nectar flows and they will leave
such straps on their hives year around, a testament to
their durability and functionality. Use of such strapping
against bears can save you hundreds of dollars, and lots
of time over using fences or bear boards.
Once a bear has gotten a taste of the honey and
brood combs that sit in your hives, or for some other
reason becomes very determined, it is practically
impossible to keep them out no matter what type of
bear protection you utilize. Strapping hives, like all
the other options for bear protection, is not without its
potential weaknesses and points of failure. Even when
using metal straps which can hold up to a bear’s
sharp claws, a bear could conceivably catch the cam
lock buckle with a claw by accident while mauling the
colony and loosen the strap. A really determined bear
is also strong enough to simply rip the sides of the
hive bodies apart in order to gain access if he or she
chose to. If the hive is outfitted with a screened
bottom board that is open to the ground the bear could
easily rip the wire mesh out and reach up inside of the
hive.
The biggest weakness of bear boards is that they tend
to warp. This makes it easier for a crafty bear to catch
the edge of a board with its paw and turn it over, or
shove it out of the way. Pushing the bear boards up
flush against the hive stand, or adjacent boards and
staking them around the edges with wooden sticks or
tent stakes can help prevent this. Just don’t forget to
move the boards when you want to work the bees!
Fences, being one of the most common and expensive
forms of bear control, are notorious for failing.
Determined bears will dig under them, climb over
them, jump over them (from an overhanging tree limb),
or even go through them. One Vermont beekeeper even
told me of a video that caught a bear backing into an
electric fence in order to push through the fence
without exposing its sensitive head and face to the
hot wires. Electric fences also tend to require periodic
maintenance in order to keep the battery charged and
prevent vegetation from grounding out the hot wires.
Some beekeepers who rely on a chain link fence, and
have a relatively small yard to enclose, will cover the
top with fencing along with the sides and even bury the
fence two to three feet deep in order to reduce the
chances of a bear climbing over or digging under the
fence.
To help prevent drawbacks of the above approaches
from providing you with a single point of failure, you
may want to combine two, or all three of the above.
This way one approach acts as the back-up system for
another should a bear figure out how to get around one
of them.
One alternative to all these approaches is to shoot the
bear. This remedy is typically applied after the bear
has already visited one or more times and reeked
havoc and is not without its drawbacks. Shooting a bear
that is attacking your hives may not be legal in all
states. Be prepared to stay up all night waiting for the
bear to show up, IF it decides to make an appearance.
Unfortunately, killing an offending bear only works until
the next bear comes along. Bears don’t understand
human inventions such as property rights and boundaries.
One could argue that sentencing a bear to death simply
for wandering around exploring its world and munching
on all the good things it finds to eat along the way, just
as bears have always done for thousands of years is
extreme and unjust.
An alternative enclosure that some beekeepers use is
to house bees inside a structure of some type. 'Bee
Houses' have included old barns, trailers with structures
built on top of them, and old buses and vans that have
the seats removed in order to make room for the hives.
If you can get an old junker cheap (or free if you are
willing to tow it away for the owner), this has the
potential to be one of the least expensive and most
bear proof of all the options with one exception . . .
moving the bees out of bear territory. Of course bear
territories may change along with the changing climate
conditions.
Moving bees is much easier than moving the bear
which typically requires that the bear be trapped and/or
tranquilized. This typically involves the local Fish and
Game Department and is probably the most expensive
option. Should your colonies be destroyed by bear
despite your best efforts, some states will offer partial
or full compensation to cover the loss. Check with your
state bee inspector or Fish and Game Department for
the situation in your region. Some states require that
bees be registered in order to be covered by such a
program. After all, dealing with bears is like dealing
with bees: There are no guarantees!
Ross Conrad is the author of Natural Beekeeping. You
can reach him at P.O. Box 443, Middlebury, VT 05753
www.dancingbeegardens.com
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD):
The Sign Of Things To Come?
When I'm asked why I am so passionate about keeping
bees without using chemicals, I have to reply that while
I have long been wary of the impacts that chemicals can
have on bees, I think chemical contaminants may be
playing a larger role in the increase in honey bee die
offs seen in recent years than has been acknowledged
up until now. As a result it is my opinion that while we
may see a decline in CCD reports (primarily from efforts
to increase the overall health of our honey bee
populations), we are not likely to see CCD totally go
away anytime soon.
I used to believe, like many today, in the current
thinking regarding CCD: that it has multiple causes from
disease and mite pressures, to chemicals, environmental
and dietary stress. However there has been one small
detail about this theory that has been bothering me for
some time. That detail that has been nagging me in the
back of my mind for some time, is the one characteristic
of CCD that tends to be overlooked when discussing the
cause of colony collapse and typically appears way at
the bottom of the list of CCD symptoms: The notable
delay in robbing by other bees and slower than normal
invasion of the collapsed hive by common pests such as
wax moths, small hive beetles (SHB), wasps, and
hornets. 1 As far as I can tell, this symptom
differentiates the current mass die off from previous
large scale bee losses of the past.
While I admit is it theoretically possible that honey bee
diseases may have an impact on hive scavengers, to
date no honey bee disease has been found that also
effect other insect species though research is ongoing in
this area. While it is likely that we may eventually
discover that honey bee diseases may effect other types
of bees in some instances, the ability of such diseases
to jump from bees to moths or beetles seems very
unlikely to me. Even a clearly recognizable disease such
as American Foulbrood with its notorious foul smell is
not enough to deter wax moths or beetles. Now I know
there are those that will disagree with me, but I find it
doubtful that we would be seeing this symptomatic delay
in scavenging in such a variety of species if a honey bee
diseases were the driving force behind CCD.
By the same token, there have been no studies or
reports to date of honey bee parasites, such as Varroa
and Tracheal mites, deterring moths and beetles from
feasting on the remains of a dead or weakened colony.
In addition, environmental or dietary stress that is not
obvious to the beekeeper, has not been shown to be a
deterrent to moths and beetles. While the interaction
between diseases, mites, dietary and environmental
stress is believed to be implicated in CCD, it is hard to
see how any of these factors combined would cause a
delay in scavenging when none do so alone. This is not
to say that they don't have a role to play, and are not
the cause of many colony losses, but by themselves and
taken together these causes of death are not able to
explain the lack of moth and beetle activity that has
been observed.
There is however, one potential candidate for the cause
of CCD that is currently being evaluated and could
potentially explain the symptom of delayed scavenging:
toxic chemical contamination. Unlike the other suspects,
chemicals have already proven themselves capable of
repelling bees as anyone who has used a fume board to
harvest honey can testify. As a result, it is much more
likely that chemicals are also the factor that repels wax
moths and SHB.
Our sea of toxic chemicals
Research at Penn Sate University in 2007 identified 46
different pesticides and their breakdown products in
samples of bee pollen, with as many as 17 pesticides in
a single sample. 2 Such toxic compounds found in the
hive can potentially come from many sources including
industrial pollution, toxins emitted from the use of
consumer goods (including automobiles), agricultural
chemicals, genetically engineered organisms, and
chemicals that beekeepers use in and around the hive.
To help regulate such chemicals the U.S. Congress
created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Unfortunately, the EPA's efforts to protect the public
and the environment from harmful chemical
contamination have been a dismal failure overall. Now I
don't want to sound like I am criticizing the EPA. As I
will explain, it really isn't the agencies fault that its
founding charter to protect human and environmental
health from potentially harmful chemicals has not even
come close to being met. Let me outline a few of the
many reasons why I believe this is the case.
When the EPA was created in 1970 and sanctioned with
the task of regulating chemicals, all the chemicals that
were already used in commerce up to that time were
grandfathered in. Additionally, since the EPA is given
very limited personnel and financial resources, the
agency ends up relying on the chemical manufacturers
for the majority of the scientific data that is used to
evaluate the safety of the regulated toxins.
When chemicals are evaluated for toxicity, they are
studied in isolation. Little thought is given to the
chemical's break down products which can prove to be
more toxic and longer lasting than the original chemical
itself, such as in the case of Imidacloprid Olefin, which
is produced as the neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid degrades.
Once in use and released into the environment,
chemicals, and their breakdown products, will combine
with other chemicals already in the environment to form
new compounds. The synergistic effects of some of these
combinations have proven themselves to be hundreds of
times more toxic than either compound on its own.
Recent research into endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(the kind often used as pesticides), reveals that the
timing of exposure combines with the amount of
exposure to produce a chemical's effect. 3 Thus, a
certain dose might be very toxic to an organism in its
developmental stage, while not having any detrimental
affects on the organism once it has matures, or vice-
verse. To make matters worse, in some cases low
doses of a chemical can be more damaging than higher
doses. These new understandings of chemical toxicity
have proven wrong Paracelsus's 450-year-old maxim,
"The dose makes the poison." Today we know that
often the timing makes the poison 4 and that
sometimes less is actually worse. 5
Add to this the many studies that now show that a
cocktail of “insignificant” doses of several chemicals
each acting on their own can combine to have
significant results. In other words, exposure to very
low concentrations of several chemicals at the same
time can cause biological effects that none of the
chemicals would have on their own. 6 Thus when an
living organism is exposed to a mixture of chemicals,
every component contributes to the overall effect, no
matter how minute their concentration.
Is meaningful chemical regulation actually possible?
All of this makes the task of toxicity testing so
complicated that realistically no chemical is going to
ever be thoroughly tested for safety either for humans
or bees, before being manufactured and marketed. To
do so we first would need to know which biological
tissues or functions the chemical affects, in what ways,
at what potencies, and whether vulnerable populations
will be exposed to other chemicals that affect the same
tissues or biological functions. Then we would have to
test groups of chemicals in combinations at low and
high doses, and several doses in between. We would
then have to determine whether the creature being
studied (mouse, human, honey bee, or whatever) is
impacted by this combination of chemicals at one
particular stage of life or another. In humans we know
for example that during gestation in the womb,
exposure to certain chemicals during one particular
week can produce effects not seen when exposure
occurs during a different week. However, none of this
testing takes into account the potential synergistic
effects of the multiple compounds that already exist in
the environment. For example, suppose we wanted to
test the synergistic actions of just 1,000 toxic
chemicals in unique combinations of five chemical each.
A little mathematics indicates that we would have to
test over 8 trillion groups of chemicals. Even if we could
test the wildly optimistic number of a million
combinations each year, it would take us over 8,000
years to finish the task. When we consider that we are
presently putting hundreds of new chemicals into
commercial channels each year, and we (and our bees)
have the potential to come into contact with tens of
thousands of man-made chemicals daily, we begin to
understand the enormity of such a task.
Even if we stopped producing and releasing new
chemicals into the environment today, there are tens
of thousands of toxic chemicals currently in use, and a
clear understanding of the complexities and expense
involved in proper and thorough toxicity testing is
unlikely to happen. At this point you might be asking
yourself, how on earth did this situation come about?
How could we have managed to allow the impacts of
our various economic activities to add up to a world
so damaged that the Earth's natural capacity for self-
renewal is being exceeded and permanent degradation
has become evident? And more importantly, where
might we begin in our efforts to fix this mess?
Faulty assumptions
One reason for the current chemical regulatory mess
that has allowed our bees to be negatively impacted,
is that regulated chemical industries have influence
over the formation of the regulations by which they are
to be governed. In addition, our legal and regulatory
systems were never designed to limit the accumulation
of small impacts. Instead, U.S. law relies on cost-
benefit analysis to justify individual impacts, a practice
that has become obsolete as it destroys the planet as
a place suitable for honey bee (and human) habitation.
In his 1980 book, Overshoot, William Catton, Jr.
states, "Infinitesimal actions, if they are numerous and
cumulative, can become enormously consequential.”
This statement refers to the problem of cumulative
impacts where actions that are harmless or tolerable
at the individual level can degrade the planets life
support systems if thousands or millions of people do
them. One person fertilizing their lawn near
Chesapeake Bay or on one of the bay's tributaries for
example makes no significant impact, but when tens of
thousands do it the bay becomes degraded and Blue
Crab populations decline precipitously.
When it comes to chemicals the current regulatory
approach to controlling pollution does not deal with
global pollution. The main focus has instead been on
the maximally exposed individual. 7 In the United
States, we conduct risk assessments (used when conducting
“cost-benefit” analyses) to evaluate the
risk to a hypothetical “maximally exposed” individual.
If the threat to that individual (or honey bee) is found
to fall within acceptable limits, then regulation does
not occur and these so-called acceptable amounts of
contamination are allowed to be released forever after.
Then another risk assessment and cost benefit analysis
gives the go-ahead to another acceptable release or
use of a different toxic substance or harmful activity.
Then another and another. What we have not started
to look at until recently is the total impact of all these
acceptable risks. Our society has assumed that it could
tolerate unlimited small amounts of harm as a
byproduct of economic growth. It is only when a
particular activity is demonstrated to fail to provide a
net benefit to society that most of our property and
environmental laws are permitted to interfere with
economic activity.
Obsolete Laws
Biochemist and lawyer, Joseph H. Guth, legal director
of the Science and Environmental Health Network, has
analyzed this situation and offered solutions in several
scholarly papers one of which is soon to be published
in the Barry Law Review, titled “Cumulative Impacts:
Death-Knell for Cost-Benefit Analysis In Environmental
Decisions.” 8 In this paper Guth points out that our laws
only forbid damage when the perceived benefits are not
considered to outweigh the cost or destruction to the
environment or human health. The law also puts the
burden of proof that an activity is creating more harm
than good on the injured party, or the government. If
the victim (or the government) can not meet the burden
of proof, then the damaging action is allowed to
continue by default. This burden of proof transforms
doubt, and missing scientific information into a barrier
to legal protection for the environment (and honey
bees). The default presumption is that the benefits of
economic activity always outweigh the costs unless a
specific cost-benefit analysis (often based upon
incomplete or faulty research conducted by those that
stand to profit) can show otherwise.
According to Joe Guth, “ "These laws do not permit
regulators broadly to take account of what is happening
to the world around them. They embed regulators in a
decision-making structure that may seem scientific but
in fact is profoundly unscientific because it prevents
them from responding to the ever more detailed
findings by the world scientific community that we are
overshooting the Earth's ecological capacities. Rooted
in the assumption that ecological overshoot does not
occur, our current statutes are incapable of containing
the cumulative scale of ecological damage... It is an
approach that has become outdated because it is based
on assumptions that are no longer valid."
Guth sums up by stating, “To maintain a functioning biosphere
in which humans can prosper, the law must turn its attention to the
problem of cumulative impacts. The law will have to abandon its use
of cost-benefit analysis to justify individual environmental impacts
and instead adopt the goal of maintaining the functioning ecological
systems that we are so dependent upon.”
In Section II of his “Cumulative Impacts” paper, Joe
Guth states that “Our legal system already harbors
examples of decision-making structures that establish a
principle of standard of environmental quality or human health
and do not rely on cost-benefit balancing.” and that
these examples “show that such legal principles or
standards can enable the legal system to contain the
growth of cumulative impacts.”
From “Yes We Can,” to “Let's Do It”
These new understandings of chemical toxicity and our
inability to adequately address them with our current
regulatory structures and laws may help bring about
radical and overdue changes to our chemical regulating
policies. Other countries are starting to come to the
conclusion that broad screening principles should be
applied before individual chemicals are even tested.
Such thinking would require us to go beyond the
European Unions new chemicals policies. The Swedish
Natural Step principles might be a good place to start
in establishing a truly adequate and protective chemical
policy. 9 The Natural Step Framework of four system
conditions that focus on ending the systematic buildup
of toxic substances, the degradation of nature and our
natural systems, and conditions that undermine human
needs, has proven itself to be a scientifically robust
model that can be used to help us make pragmatic
decisions that move us toward sustainability.
Another way in which we might move toward a system
that allows us to enjoy the fruits of modern technology
while honoring the limits of the Earth is by making a
serious commitment to adopt the Precautionary
Principle. 10 This principle would shift the burden of
proof by assuming that every action that causes an
impact on Earth may be harmful unless proven
otherwise, and by forcing us to always seek out and
choose the least harmful alternative. Furthermore the
Precautionary Principle requires that we pay attention
to the consequences of our decisions by monitoring for
environmental harm and reversing course if necessary.
This would also mean that we would favor decisions, or
courses of action that are reversible and avoid
commitments that are extremely difficult to undo 11
(such as releasing genetically engineered organisms
into the environment).
An approach that should be considered in combination
with the Precautionary Principle is to make chemical
manufacturers responsible for the impacts that there
products have on the environment. We currently allow
companies to externalize these expenses. Often it is
we, the tax payers, that are having to cover the costs
of cleaning up messes like the superfund sites
scattered throughout the U.S. Unfortunately, of the
more than 1700 superfund sites that have been
identified in the U.S., less than 500 have been cleaned
up since the fund's establishment in 1980. We need to
start forcing companies to bear the costs of cleaning up
the messes their products produce.
These may seem like common sense proposals, but how
remote they are from the way decisions are being made
today! The importance for human society to approach
chemical regulation (and many other issues) differently
becomes apparent the moment we accept that humans
have become a force of geologic proportions and are
degrading the biosphere upon which the honey bee (and
ultimately all other species) is entirely dependent. This
implies that the public along with the media, the courts,
public and corporate decision makers, and school
children, among others, must be informed that the
world is new—new because humans have become a
force of geologic proportions and are now degrading the
planet in ways that threaten the ability for much of the
life that exists now to continue to survive. This is
definitely new and requires a new understanding of our
history and our kind, new thinking, new goals, new
habits and attitudes, new stories and societal
structures. Much of what we learned in high school and
college is obsolete and stands in our way.
In taking on these efforts we must give full recognition
to the remarkable human capacity for self-deception and
denial. We humans do not accommodate change readily,
in fact we tend to resist it. We seem wired (especially
as we age) to deceive ourselves and deny reality; we
look for scapegoats to blame and punish. This crucial
reality must be thoughtfully acknowledged and
navigated successfully if we are going to manage to
implement the changes that are needed.
Time is of the essence
Proper chemical regulation is not primarily a technical
problem but a human problem that encompasses money,
political power, and societal rules and laws based upon
faulty assumptions. These issues will need to be
overcome before we can expect CCD to totally go away.
Given that it is not just honey bees that are in decline
but pollinators across the board from native solitary
bees, and moths, to butterflies, bats, and birds, making
this problem is all the more urgent. Researchers that
study these things indicate that we are currently seeing
a rate of species extinction of about 70 species a day,
that's about three species an hour (some estimates are
much higher). This is a rate the planet has not seen in
about 65 million years, and a time when an giant
asteroid is believed to have collided with the Earth and
the dinosaurs died out. 12 At this rate, some estimate
that about half of all the life forms living on earth today
will not exist by 2100.
Given all that we don't know or understand about the
effects on the world the chemicals we are making and
using on a daily basis are having, it is hard to imagine
that they are not playing a significant role in the current
rates of species extinction being observed today. A role
that may be on par with the disappearance of our
forests, the acidification and warming of our oceans,
and the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in our
atmosphere. Our future, which is intimately tied to the
Earth's future, depends on what we choose to do on
personal, regional, national, and international levels as
a society. One place we can start today is by reducing
or eliminating the use of chemicals in our hives. Then
we can expand on this to reduce or eliminate chemical
use and exposure as much as possible from the rest of
our lives. This means among other things, avoiding
chemicals, as well as chemically laden products and
foods not grown using organic, biodynamic or
permaculture methods. If we don't take effective action
to come to grips with this entrenched problem soon, we
may find that CCD is just a harbinger of things to come.
References:
1. Dennis vanEngelsdorp, Diana Cox Foster, Maryann Frazier,
Nancy Ostiguy, and Jerry Hayes, Fall Dwindle Disease: A
Preliminary Report: First Revision, December 15, 2006
http://maarec.psu.edu/pressReleases/FallDwindleUpdate0107.pdf
2. Maryann Frazier, Chris Mullin, Jim Frazier, and Sara Ashcroft,
“What Have Pesticides Got To Do With It?”, American Bee
Journal, Vol. 148, No. 6, (June 2008) Pgs. 521-523
3. Consensus Statement from the work session on Chemically-
Induced Alterations in Sexual development: The Wildlife/Human
Connection, Wisconsin, July 1991
http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/wingspread_consensus_statement.pdf
4. The Authors, The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of
Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment,
Journal Compilation, Basic and Clinical Pharmacology &
Toxicology, Nordic Pharmacological Society, 2007: 102, 73-75
http://www.precaution.org/lib/faroes_statement_pub.070801.pdf
5. Peter Montague, “Paracelsus Revisited”, Environmental
Research Foundation, October 16, 2002
http://rachel.org/en/node/5579
6. Bijal Trivedi, “Toxic Cocktail”, New Scientist (pg. 44)
September 2007 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_toxic_cocktail.070903.htm
7. Curtis C. Travis, Sheri T. Hester, “Global Chemical Pollution”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1991
http://www.precaution.org/lib/travis_and_hester.1991.pdf
8. Joseph H. Guth, "Cumulative Impacts: Death-Knell for Cost-
Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisions," Barry Law Review,
2009. http://www.barry.edu/law/studentLife/lawreview.htm
9. The Natural Step, The Four System Conditions
http://www.naturalstep.org/the-system-conditions
10. Precautionary Principle, Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
11. Donald Ludwig, Ray Hilborn, and Carl Walters, Uncertainty,
Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons From History,
Science (April 1993) Vol. 260
http://www.precaution.org/lib/ludwig.930402.pdf
12. ScienceDaily, “The sixth wave of extinction”, August 23,
2004
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040816001443.htm
The Skinny On High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and
Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF)
Blossoming plants are the bee's grocery store, often
providing nutritious ingredients for hive healthy meals.
When beekeeper's supply meals on wheels for the hive,
how is the health of the colony effected?
It all depends on whats on the menu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweeter and less expensive than sugar, High-Fructose
Corn Syrup (HFCS) is responsible for one of the largest
changes to the diets of both the average American and
the average U.S. European honey bee over the last 40
years. It now accounts for more than half the refined
sweeteners used in the U.S. food supply.
Health Issues Related to HFCS
Most of the corn grown in the United States today is
genetically modified to produce a toxin to protect it
from corn borers and other insects. This pesticide is
produced in every cell in every part of the corn plant.
As a result this poison also ends up in the final corn
based products that are consumed, including HFCS.
Adding to this concern is a corresponding increase in
human health issues and degenerative diseases such
as weight gain, diabetes, and heart disease that has
occurred during the past 40 years and has been linked
to the consumption of HFCS by numerous researchers.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 As if all this wasn't enough, two recent
studies found toxic levels of mercury in almost half the
samples of HFCS tested, and in about a third of the
food products studied which contained corn syrup as an
ingredient.6 The most likely sources of the mercury
contamination are mercury-containing hydrochloric acid
and caustic soda, both of which may be used in the
production of HFCS. All of this does not reflect well on
the dietary use of High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Health Issues Related to HMF
Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) is a compound that is
formed when fructose degrades after being exposed to
heat while in the presence of an acid. In general, the
warmer the temperature, the greater the production of
HMF in HFCS with concentrations really jumping
dramatically at temperatures of 120 degrees
Fahrenheit (49° C) and higher.7 HMF is suspected to
play a role in human obesity and heart disease. In test
tube studies, high levels of HMF has been linked to
significant DNA damage in human cells.8 When HMF
breaks down in the human body, it can create
substances that are even more harmful than HMF itself.
Industry's Response
A visit to the Corn Refiner's Association (CRA) website
waxes poetic about the virtues of HFCS with quotes
such as “HFCS is the chemical and nutritional
equivalent of table sugar (sucrose). The two substances
have the same calories, the same chemical composition,
and are metabolized identically.”9 The first part of this
statement is basically true given the use of the word
“equivalent” which can mean similar, but not the same.
Both HFCS and sugar certainly have approximately the
same number of calories and both are pure carbohydrate
which means that they are both virtually devoid of
vitamins and minerals. For this reason alone, such
sugars should be avoided since they do not promote
robust health. To state that HFCS and table sugar are
“metabolized identically” is suspect however, given that
sucrose is composed primarily of disaccharides and
HFCS is composed of primarily mono saccharides. Such
statements rely on reports that ignore the large amount
of research and the epidemiological correlation showing
that HFCS is metabolized differently than sucrose.
The CRA website even compares high fructose corn
syrup to honey with the statement “...the saccharide
composition (glucose to fructose ratio) of HFCS is
approximately the same as that of honey, inverted
sugar, and the disaccharide sucrose (table sugar)”. This
statement may be true with regard to honey, depending
on the the type of corn syrup you are referring to since
HFCS is available in three different formulations. HFCS
containing forty-two percent fructose is used primarily
in processed, packaged and baked goods. Fifty-five
percent fructose corn syrup is used by soft drink
manufacturers. Finally an extremely sweet, ninety
percent HFCS is used in low-calorie “diet” products.
Honey on the other hand tends to be composed of a
mixture of primarily fructose and glucose. Given that
the National Honey Board lists the fructose range of
honey as between 30.91- 44.26 percent the comparison
of HFCS to honey may be true, but only between certain
types of honey and corn syrup containing 42 percent
fructose.10
The Corn Refiner's Association goes on to attempt to
refute all the negative studies and reports on HFCS and
hydroxymethylfurfural. They question the quality and
accuracy of the studies that point to potential human or
honey bee health issues and cite other studies that
seem to reach conflicting conclusions with regard to the
effects of HFCS. They responded to the mercury
contamination issue with misleading statements such
as, “Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the
two re-agents mentioned ..., hydrochloric acid and
caustic soda, for several years”, without referring to
the fact that not all members of the industry have
made the switch to using the mercury-free processing
agents. The CRA will also point to Food and Drug
Administration and Environmental Protection Agency
approval for genetically modified corn as proof that
HFCS made from GM corn is safe for human and animal consumption.
Corn processors would like the the public to believe
that the fructose in HFCS is the same as the fructose
found in natural foods like fruit and honey. Most of the
fructose found in fruit and honey is in the form of
L-fructose or levulose; the fructose in HFCS is
D-fructose which has a slightly different chemical
structure. Fresh fruits can contain small amounts of
D-fructose but “the D-fructose in HFCS has the reversed isomerization and polarity of a refined fructose
molecule.”11 As a result, the fructose in HFCS is not
used as an energy source by the human body
because the body does not recognize the molecule and
is not able to convert significant amounts of the
fructose into glucose.12 Instead the highly refined
sweetener is converted primarily into triglycerides and
body fat. This is supported by recent research that
found that obese people who consumed a beverage
containing D-fructose at a meal had triglyceride levels
about 200 percent higher than those that drank a
glucose sweetened beverage with a meal.13
What's A Consumer To Do?
All in all, the industry response to the growing concerns
over High Fructose Corn Syrup is eerily similar to the
tobacco industry's efforts that deceived consumers into
believing that cigarettes were safe and in some cases
even healthy to smoke. After looking at the evidence it
seems that the prudent approach would be to avoid
human consumption of HFCS in all its forms. Food
products containing corn syrup that are cooked or
heated up before being consumed are especially risky
due to the increase in HMF formation. As individuals
with free will, we can make such choices for ourselves. Unfortunately, the honey bees in our care do not get to
make an informed choice when we feed HFCS to them.
What's A Beekeeper To Do?
The toxic effects of HFCS has the potential to harm
bees as well as humans. Not only does corn syrup
contain two types of sugar that are mildly toxic to
honey bees; stachyose and farrinose,14 but high levels
of HMF have been shown to cause ulceration of the
honey bee gut leading to dysentery issues and
premature death.
The best food to feed a honey bee is unheated honey.
Since both fructose and acids are naturally present in
honey, the production of HMF is always taking place in
honey and accelerates when honey is heated. As a
result the level of hydroxymethylfurfural in honey is
sometimes used as a gage to determine how old a
sample of honey is and whether it has been exposed to
heat either during processing or while in storage. The
international tolerance for HMF in honey is 40 mg/kg
(or 4 mg/100g) which can be reached after 230 days at
68° F (20° C).15 The ease of HMF formation in honey
depends upon the botanical origins of the honey, with
locus, fir-tree, and chestnut honey being among those
most resistant to HMF buildup.16,17 In general, honey
heated to around 122° F (50° C) experiences a relatively
slow increase in HMF. Honey has a high increase of
HMF when heated up to about 144° F (62° C), and
honey becomes seriously impaired with excess HMF
when exposed to temperatures of 180° F (82° C) and
above.18
If adequate amounts of unheated honey are not
available for feeding bees, syrup made from white cane
sugar is the next best thing to use. (see The Honey
Bee Diet, May 2009 Bee Culture for ideas on how to
improve the nutritional content of cane sugar syrup). If
you insist on using HFCS to feed your bees, be sure to
purchase syrup that is produced using the enzyme
hydrolysis process that tends to result in less HMF
ending up in the syrup and avoids the opportunity for
mercury contamination as opposed to acid hydrolyzed
inverted sugars. HFCS purchased as bee feed should be
used up ASAP and stored at temperatures well below
120° F (49° C) in order to limit the build-up of HMF that
occurs with time and temperature.
Since the heating of honey is standard practice during
honey harvesting and processing, this is something
that our beekeeping industry should take a long hard
look at. When hot, honey thins out it flows easier
through pumps and filters during processing. Heating
and filtering delays honey's natural crystallization
process. Unfortunately, heat also tends to change the
color of honey. The flavor of honey is affected by
heating, and as we have seen above, heat degrades
the quality of honey through the increased formation of
hydroxymethylfurfural. Considering the growing
evidence that HMF is harmful to robust health,
beekeepers and honey processors that are concerned
with maximizing the quality of their honey will modify
their operations in order to use as little heat as
possible.
This also means that when used in the kitchen, it is
more desirable to use honey in recipes that call for
little or no heating, such as salad dressings, dips,
spreads, and toppings. When cooking with honey in
temperatures over 120° Fahrenheit (49° C), it would be
best to use recipes that involve diluting the honey with
other ingredients (e.g. tea water) since significant
dilution of the fructose and acids in honey will prevent
the formation of HMF.
References:
-
Bray, G.A., et. al., Consumption of High-Fructose Corn Syrup In Beverages May Play A Role In The Epidemic Of Obesity, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, April 2004, Vol. 79, No. 4, 537-543
-
Forshee, R.A., A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2007, 47:561-582
-
Hollenbeck, Claire B., Dietary Fructose Effects on Lipoprotein Metabolism and Risk for Coronary Artery Disease, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58 (suppl), 1993, 800S-807S
-
Choi, H.K., Curhan, G., Soft Drinks, Fructose Consumption, and the Risk of Gout in Men: Prospective Cohort Study, British Medical Journal, February 9, 2008; 336(7639):309-312
-
Stranahan, A.M., et. al., Diet-induced insulin resistance impairs hippocampal synaptic plasticity and dognition in mid aged rats. Hippocampus, July 23, 2008.
-
Dufault, R., et al., Mercury From Chlor-alkalai Plants: Measured Concentrations In Food Product Sugar, Environmental Health, 2009 8:2 http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2
-
Blaise W. LeBlanc, et. al., Formation of Hydroxymethylfurfural in Domestic High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Its Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera), J. Agric. Food Chem., July, 31, (2009), 57 (16), pp 7369-7376
-
Durling, L.J., Busk, L., Hellman, B.E., Evaluation of the DNA damaging effect of the heat-induced food toxicant 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in various cell lines with different activities of sulfotransferases, Food Chem Toxicology, January 20, 2009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19709598
-
Corn Refiner's Association: www.sweetsurprise.com
-
National Honey Board: http://www.honey.com/downloads/carb.pdf
-
Los Altos Health Research Clinic Study conducted by Dr. Gene Spiller. Polarimetry Saccharimetry and the Sugars, Circular C440, US National Bureau Of Standards, by Frederick J. Bates & Assoc., May 1, 1942, taken from Fallon Morell, S., Nagel, R.,Worse Than We Thought, The Lowdown on High Fructose Corn Syrup and Agave “Nectar” Wise Traditions, Spring 2009, pg. 52, Published by the Weston A. Price Foundation.
-
The Metabolic Basis Of Inherited Disease, McGraw Hill, ISBN 0-07-060726-5, Editors Richard S. Lauffer, Ellen Warren & Donna McIvor, Chapter 5, The Metabolism Of Fructose, and Chapter 12, Some Specific Pathways Of Metabolism Of Carbohydrates And Lipids, taken from Fallon Morell, S., Nagel, R.,Worse Than We Thought, The Lowdown on High Fructose Corn Syrup and Agave “Nectar” Wise Traditions, Spring 2009, pg. 52, Published by the Weston A. Price Foundation.
-
Teff, K.L., et. al., Endocrine and metabolic effects of consuming fructose- and glucose-sweetened beverages with meals in obese men and women: influence of insulin resistance on plasma triglyceride responses, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2008-2192, taken from Fallon Morell, S., Nagel, R.,Worse Than We Thought, The Lowdown on High Fructose Corn Syrup and Agave “Nectar” Wise Traditions, Spring 2009, pg. 52, Published by the Weston A. Price Foundation.
-
Bob Harrison, “Weslaco Bee Lab and Current Research,” American Bee Journal, 147 (4): 323-326
-
Juarez-Salomo, A., Valle-Vega, P., Hydroxymethylfuraldehyde thermogeneration as honey quality parameter, Tecnologia-de-Alimentos; 30(6) 13-17, 17 ref. NU: ISSN: 0564-6758
accessed on line at http://www.airborne.co.nz/HMFref.html
-
Thrasyvoulou, A., Heating Times For Greek Honey's, Melissokomiki-Epitheorisi, 1997, 11:2, 79-80, Bj. 1997 accessed on line at http://www.airborne.co.nz/HMFref.html
-
Kubis, I, Ingr, I, Effects Inducing Changes In Hydroxymethylfurfural Content In Honey, Czec. Journal of Animal Science, 43 (8), 379-383, 11 ref. NU: ISSN: 0044-4847
accessed on line at http://www.airborne.co.nz/HMFref.html
-
Ibid
To Requeen or not to Requeen: That is the question
The act of requeening a hive by removing a colony's
queen and replacing her with a new queen has long
been a recommended practice in beekeeping circles.
The primary reasons for this are that younger queens
are less likely to swarm and tend to lay more eggs than
older queens. The resulting larger colonies are more
likely to produce bumper honey crops. By requeening a
colony with a mated queen instead of allowing it to
naturally supersede the old queen, the beekeeper will
tend to have more control over the genetic make-up of
the hive and will avoid mating issues due to inclement weather, or an insufficient number of drones in the
mating area.
On the other hand beekeepers who requeen their hives
find that it can be a laborious task that is time
consuming and it can be expensive. Making matters
worse is the fact that requeening efforts will often fail,
even when carried out by an experienced beekeeper.
These disadvantages to requeening may encourage
some beekeepers to pursue a different approach.
Rather than requeen, some beekeepers will allow their
hives to go through their natural cycle and allow each
queen to live out its life fully and in accordance with its
own timetable. This may mean that hives will
supersede or swarm more often (though there are a
number of management techniques that will introduce
space into the brood area and deter the swarming
instinct without requeening). However the time and
money saved by not having to raise and/or purchase replacement queens and introduce them into the hive,
more than make up for such inconveniences in most
cases. Unless you are doing research, keeping bees in africanized bee territory, or trying to breed a pure strain
of honey bee, requeening is an option not a necessity.
These two divergent approaches tend to be guided by
differing world views. One perspective tends to view
life as a ladder or pyramid with dirt at the bottom,
humans at the top and everything else filling in the
hierarchy somewhere in between. From this perspective
those at the top of the hierarchy have dominion over
those below. This leads to the contemporary concept of ownership that allows one to do what one will with
whatever one owns. This unfortunately seems to
perpetuate a system that encourages the use of force
to obtain resources. Even the term “resources” is a
result of this view. Referring to the land, the trees, the minerals, bees, etc., as “resources” assumes that they
are here simply for our use, and don't have a right to
the freedom of expression that is uniquely their own
for their own sake. From his viewpoint, it is perfectly
normal and expected that one would “pinch” a queen
bee that is not performing to our standards and replace
her with one we expect will do better. The bees in most
cases however, are not trying to get rid of their queen
and in fact may try to protect her from our requeening
efforts. When we purposely kill a hive's queen and
replace her with a new one, we tend to be acting on
behalf of our own interests and not necessarily the
bee's. What gives us the right to treat our hives this
way? The kind of world view outlined above that would
define a hive as mere insects or property.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is a circular world
view in which there is no top or bottom. All beings
coexist in a community of life in which everything
supports everything else. In this world view the tree,
the blade of grass, or the honey bee colony is no more,
and no less important than the human being. From this
perspective, everything in nature has its own right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When one considers the reasons that might cause a
beekeeper to requeen a hive, the majority of the
reasons are centered around the desires and needs of
the beekeeper: not enough brood or honey production,
the age of the queen, or the temperament of the hive.
Little if any consideration is given to the desires and
needs of the bees. To be fair, this attitude is typical
throughout our agricultural industry and is not limited
to keeping bees. As part of the industrial model of
agriculture, we have a tendency to impose our ideas of
how things should be upon the animals, plants, and
land we are responsible for rather than let things
unfold in a more natural way. By acting this way as
beekeepers we are implying that we know better than
the bees, what is best for the hive. This interventionist
way of thinking reveals itself when beekeepers clip the
wings of a queen in an attempt to stop her from flying
off with a swarm, install a queen excluder to limit the
area in which the queen can lay eggs and raise brood,
or remove honey that the hive needs to get through a
dearth and feed sugar syrup back to the hive as a
replacement.
Now I must confess that all this is coming from a
person who has never requeened a hive. The main
reason for this is because this is the way I was taught
by the Mraz family, of Champlain Valley Apiaries who
mentored me in my early years of beekeeping. My
tendency, as was the tendency of the Mraz's, is to
allow each hive to prosper or decline according to its
own abilities and fate. Sure I'll do what I can to try to
assist the hive by attempting to keep it as pest- and
disease-free as possible, and take pains to see that
each hive has enough honey to see it through winter,
etc. The ultimate decision as to whether the queen
lives or dies, and thus the ultimate fate of the hive
however, is left to the bees. The only time I find myself
introducing a mated queen into a hive is when the hive
has gone queenless (and I have caught it before it has
become a drone layer), or if I have made a nucleus
colony and don't want to wait for the hive to raise their
own queen from an unhatched, or very recently hatched
egg.
Over time the wisdom of not requeening my hives has
subtly influenced my beekeeping management style. I
have noticed that sometimes a hive that is weak and
must be nursed along all year will surprisingly survive
the winter in good shape. The following season such
hives will typically produce a respectable crop of honey
for harvest. Why this happens I am not certain.
However, I have to admit that the reason the hive,
from my perspective, was performing poorly in the first
place may have not been due to any fault of the bees,
but because of something that I did, or did not do as
their keeper. If the trouble the hive is having is caused
by me, how does my killing the queen and replacing her
improve things? Contemplating such things injects a
sense of humility into my beekeeping.
In addition, sentencing a queen bee to death
based solely upon her age, or the size and shape of
her brood laying pattern, ignores a whole host
of other characteristics that may or may not be
readily observable. Although a particular queen
may not possess certain characteristics that are
deemed important to us, such as high honey
production, she may harbor traits that are extremely
beneficial, but not as obvious. Resistance to
mites and diseases are two examples. Out of respect
for the bees that provide so many benefits for the
rest of us that share this wonderful blue-green
planet, I find myself resistant to purposely killing
a queen mother and replacing her. It does not matter
what the queen's age is, or whether or not she
expresses certain traits that I consider worthwhile or
valuable, it's simply a matter of stewardship and an
approach to apiculture that I prefer to practice.
By cultivating the change in attitude that will allow us
to treat the honey bee with greater reverence and
respect, we nurture the same mind-set that provides
hope for the future of human culture. In essence, if we
want to create a different world to live in, the place to
start is by changing our minds. Once our minds
have been made up, it will affect how we interact
with our hives and the rest of the world.
|
