Because I strongly believe that this topic is incredibly significant at almost every level of biology I can think of, including beekeeping….I believe it is useful to summarize the Bee-L conversation on the article “The great nutrient collapse:  The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse.   And almost nobody is paying attention.”  By Helena Bottemiller Evich for Politico.  So far those participating have offered the following:

Randy:

1)   Mentioned that he’s already published on the goldenrod results in ABJ

2)   Re-states the main point, which is that growth driven by increased CO2 means critical nutrients like zinc, iron, etc are lower relative to carbs in plant matter.

3)   Points out that nurse bees and winter bees already eat the max they can handle.

4)   Changes in nutrient flow will come at the cost of colony productivity.

Charles:

1)   Notes that “there is no data” in this popular review of the literature.

2)   Says the science is nothing but theory.  (Note to Charles:  The scientific definition of a “theory” is a principle or statement that is well-supported by a lot of evidence…the “theory of evolution” for example)

3)   Claims that there are too many strains of goldenrod and too many soil types and moisture levels to say the experiment was of any merit.

4)   States that looking at goldenrod protein levels is a “red herring” and the experiment is about nothing but politics.

5)   Concludes that there are no facts.

1)   Concludes we can do nothing… Believes we can do little about this in our lifetimes.

6)   Concludes that public figures (Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio) are hypocrites because they waste energy.

7)   Concludes beekeepers are loved by the public and are smarter than the general public.

Mark:

1)   Says this review article is a “re-hash”.

2)   Defines this review as an “opinion article”.

3)   States that goldenrod is not the only food of bees.

4)   States that compensating for less protein involves eating more.  States that total plant protein in human diet has decreased (by choice) by 50% since 1800’s.
(Question:  Does Mark know that meat proteins are derived from plant proteins????  Does he see the “trickle-down” implications here??)

5)   States that human (food) choice is more important than environmental change.

6)   States that bees will spend more time foraging for pollen as protein levels in pollen drop.

7)   Concludes that this information is not relevant to beekeeping.

Jerry:


1)   Points out that both pollen quantity and quality in modern agriculture has changed.

2)   Shares personal anecdotal evidence that pollen quantity of corn has drastically diminished.

3)   States his own research where the data shows that many crop cultivars produce pollen that bees don’t like or use.

4)   States that new research does show the protein content of crop pollen is diminishing.

5)   Objects to the selection criteria for the development of new crops…says pollinator relationship should be included as an important factor.

6)   States his own research showing that bees recover better from neonic exposure if their nutrition is good.

7)   Concludes that bees lack abundant, high-quality nutritional resources.

8)   Also notes that the way we report colony losses is misleading.

Bill G:
Playing “devil’s advocate” suggests the following questions could be asked, assuming bees will spend more time collecting pollen if the pollen quality is poorer:

1)   What will this change in work dynamic do to the hive configuration?

2)   Will the quality of bee bread be affected and how?

3)   Will bees feed more bee bread to brood to compensate for lower protein content?

4)   Is there enough time in the brood cycle to consume the necessary amount of food if more has to be eaten to get the same protein?

Bill H:

1)   Cites a study by Cane, et al showing that there is no evidence that bees collect pollen based on protein content.

Georges:

1)   States that in France heat stress is causing severe nectar and pollen dearths.  There is a serious lack of bee resources.

Peter B:

1)   States that drought conditions and regional climate cycles are not novel.

Gene:


2)   Agrees with Charles that bee pollen dearth is not new.

3)   Disagrees with Charles’ statement that the goldenrod study is about politics.

4)   Points out that “crude protein” is not the same as “amino acid requirements”.

5)   Questions why we should do nothing if we don’t expect results “in our lifetimes”.

6)   Suggests teaching upcoming farmers better crop management that isn’t affected by economic ends with little regard for the long term health of the soil.

7)   “Going political” about carbon footprints isn’t helpful.

8)   Observed that slow events are missed by society-at-large, and this might be a danger because it takes too long for consensus that leads to planning and then ultimate response to unwanted changes (such as global warming).

My analysis of this set of discussion points is that indeed red herrings abound.  What about the main point?  I think Bill Greenrose wins this round as having addressed exactly the right set of questions for beekeepers to discuss on this issue, and I think Jerry wins the “further useful information to help the discussion” prize.


Christina

PS Sorry about misspelling "nutritious".  That subject line error is driving me crazy.  :P

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html