Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Isolate and Treat Parasite Causing Decline in Honey Bee Population

In a recent report, a team of scientists from Spain claims to have isolated and treated the parasite causing honey bee depopulation syndrome. Their hope is to prevent the continued decline of honey bee populations in Europe and the US. "The loss of honey bees could have an enormous horticultural and economic impact worldwide. Honeybees are important pollinators of crops, fruit and wild flowers and are indispensable for a sustainable and profitable agriculture as well as for the maintenance of the non-agricultural ecosystem. Honeybees are attacked by numerous pathogens including viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites."

8 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hope by tarpitcod · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know bees are useful for fertilizing plants and not just the sticky yellow stuff right?

  2. Re:Hope by puppetman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pollinating, not fertilizing.

    Unless you kill them, crush and compost their bodies, and add the compost to the plants, that is.

  3. Re:Hope by tarpitcod · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dammit I knew posting on Slashdot on a Friday was a bad idea....

    Thanks for the bugfix!

  4. Nosema is a fungus... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Informative

    A parasite. Not virus or bacteria.
    Breeding resistant bees is kinda like breeding humans that are resistant to tapeworm.

    You kill or surgically remove parasites - you don't develop antibodies to fight them.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  5. Opposing study by DinDaddy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story is in direct disagreement with a recent article in SciAm, where they find colony collapse is MORE like caused by IAPV, and NOT the nosema parasite.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=saving-the-honeybee

    And since the scientists in the SciAm article looked at a lot more than two apiaries, I am gonna have to give them a lot more credence.

    1. Re:Opposing study by alanrw · · Score: 5, Informative

      For anyone interested in CCD, I strongly recommend the book "Fruitless Fall" by Rowan Jacobsen. In it, he suggests, just like the SciAm article does, that CCD is likely a combination of multiple factors, including IAPV, nosema, pesticides, industrial farming, and other contributors. While this study is a good start, I won't hold my breath that CCD is over until we have much more evidence.

  6. Re:Humanity interfering... by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be an idiot.

    Honeybees are a domesticated species. Like crops, cows and cats. There is no more "natural progression of life" to interfere with here, because the life in question is that of living things we've bred, sheltered and tamed (as much as we can say an insect is "tame").

    Plus, if it weren't for "filling wallets", the dying colonies wouldn't exist in the first place. Do you honestly think we go out and take honey from wild beehives? Are you that ignorant?

    The colonies that are dying mostly weren't those wax and paper numbers you see hanging from tree branches, they're wood and wire mesh numbers built for the express purpose of farming the bees for honey. Wild bees were also dying, but it's the domesticated ones we noticed first.

    Hell, the disease itself might not have anything to do with this moronic concept of "natural progression" you ignorantly put forth, and everything to do with us creating a situation in which the fungus can more easily infect domesticated bees than wild ones.

    Your argument might make some sense if we were referring to a wild species that was dying off from a cause unrelated to human activity. As it stands, what you're saying makes about as much sense as saying we shouldn't treat bird flu in the chicken population.

    Plus the concept of "natural progression" is a fools notion, put forward by idiots who'd have flunked out of bio 101 if they'd ever tried taking it. Evolution isn't about progress, nature isn't some sacred ineffable god, and mankind is only morally obligated to minimize the environmental impact of our own actions. We are not bound to do what is evolutionarily best, because the concept of one outcome being "best" for evolution is meaningless, and in any event we should not be using the principles of biology as moral grounds.

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  7. Re:Science solves science's problems? by duffel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of thing infuriates me. Flamebait be damned, this needs saying.

    Science is not a cause, nor a goal, or agent. Science is a framework for gaining knowledge while discarding falsehood. That is all. Saying science is the cause of some evil is saying that learning is the cause of some evil.

    There are consequences to the knowledge that science unlocks, it is true. Some of these consequences are detrimental, it is true. However, to condemn the best process of learning because some of the things we have learnt have been used in a less than ideal fashion is to condemn all the good things we have learnt through it as well, and on balance, I'd say we're ahead.

    And finally, to bitch about science, from the shelter of your science-made walls that house your your electricity-powered home, via quantum mechanical communication equipment, and with you alive in no small part due to a plethora of antibiotics and immunisations - is the worst disrespectful hypocrisy. Next time a doctor saves your life think hard on that.