[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF
POLLINATOR HEALTH INCLUDING
COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HORTICULTURE AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-39
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-679 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia,
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia TIM WALBERG, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
April Slayton, Communications Director
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California, Chairman
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas,
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee Ranking Minority Member
TIM MAHONEY, Florida JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, Jr., New
JOHN BARROW, Georgia York
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
Keith Jones, Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cardoza, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from
California, opening statement.................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, opening statement.................................... 5
Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Witnesses
Knipling, Edward, Ph.D., Administrator, Agriculture Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C....... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Delaplane, Keith S., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Entomology,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA.............................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Frazier, Maryann, Senior Extension Associate, The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA.......................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Submitted material........................................... 101
Godlin, Steve, Beekeeper, Visalia, CA............................ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Mendes, David, Vice President, American Beekeeping Federation,
North Fort Myers, FL........................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Edwards, Robert D., Cotton, Corn, Soybeans, Peanuts, and Other
Specialty Crops Producer, Halifax, Nash, and Edgecomb Counties,
North Carolina, Whitakers, NC.................................. 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Flanagan, Edward R., President & CEO, Jasper Wyman and Son,
Milbridge, ME.................................................. 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Pien, Katty, Brand Director, Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream, Oakland, CA.. 46
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Replogle, John, President and CEO, Burt's Bees, Durham, NC....... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Davies Adams, Laurie, Executive Director, Pollinator Partnership,
San Francisco, CA.............................................. 52
Prepared statement........................................... 53
HEARING TO REVIEW THE STATUS OF
POLLINATOR HEALTH INCLUDING
COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dennis
Cardoza [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cardoza, Etheridge,
Barrow, Gillibrand, Peterson (ex officio), Neugebauer, Foxx,
and Latta.
Staff present: Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Keith Jones, Scott
Kuschmider, Sharon Rusnak, John Goldberg, and Jamie Weyer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Horticulture and Organic Agriculture to review the status of
pollinator health including Colony Collapse Disorder will now
come to order.
I would like to welcome you all here today. We will have
opening statements as our first order of business. During that
time I would like to ask all the panelists that will be
appearing in our first panel to come forward. Chairman Peterson
and Ranking Member Goodlatte may arrive throughout the hearing
at some point and I would just like to recognize my Ranking
Member and good friend, Mr. Neugebauer of Texas, who will be
here in the hearing today representing the Republican side of
the aisle. We will have opening statements by myself and Mr.
Neugebauer and then we will request that other Members submit
their opening statements for the record as well as witnesses
will do so with their testimony.
Nearly 2 years ago now, a number of farmers in my district
brought to my attention the difficulty they were having when
they were procuring honey bees for their annual pollination of
crops. At first many people, myself included, assumed that the
rapid decline in the pollinator population was an aberration,
just a fluke perhaps. However, in some regions across the
country, beekeepers were reporting 30 to 90 percent losses in
their honey bee colonies. Perhaps even more intriguing, the
bees seemed to simply disappear, which is extremely
uncharacteristic for these insects. In February of last year,
top agriculture researchers in conjunction with USDA termed
this massive decline in honey bees as Colony Collapse Disorder
and set out to pinpoint the cause of this problem.
Unfortunately, it turns out that bees are extremely complex and
highly sensitive insects. Their behavior patterns can be
radically affected by slight changes in climate or weather and
when exposed to small amounts of certain pathogens, including
pesticides, making it enormously difficult to pinpoint the
exact cause of their decline.
In March of 2007, I along with my Ranking Member, Mr.
Neugebauer, convened the first ever hearing on bees and Colony
Collapse Disorder. We heard from a number of experts in the
field ranging from researchers to beekeepers to farmers about
the possible causes of this decline and potentially devastating
effects on American agriculture. Not much was known a year ago
other than there were a number of potential causes including
pathogens, parasites, environmental and management stress
issues, as well as potential nutrition problems. But the
hearing did highlight the intense need for a dedicated Federal
funding stream to further study and investigate CCD and to
support the continued longevity of domestic pollinators.
We have made notable progress towards this goal in the
recent farm bill. USDA will now encourage pollinator habitat
development in all conservation programs, thanks to the farm
bill. Specifically within the EQIP program, the Secretary is
now authorized to give greater priority to conservation
practices that promote pollinator habitat.
Additionally, millions of dollars were authorized to
conduct research on the various factors that may be
contributing to the health of honey bees and other pollinators
including pathogens and pest surveillance. The farm bill will
also provide for an increase in the capacity and infrastructure
of USDA's current colony collapse prevention efforts and
requires annual reports to the House and Senate Agriculture
Committees detailing the progress the Department has made in
addressing colony losses. Finally, mandatory funding will now
be made available under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative
for Honey Bee Health as it pertains to the specialty crop
industry.
Many of these provisions are directed specifically at
Colony Collapse Disorder but it is important to recognize the
plight of America's beekeepers and honey producers. Many
beekeepers in my district have been financially and emotionally
devastated by the rapid loss of their bee colonies. In the 2008
Farm Bill, it has also officially made honey and honey bee
losses eligible for disaster assistance. But all these
provisions are really stopgap measures. The industry really
needs answers and solutions. Our last hearing prompted the USDA
to develop an action plan for CCD. While I am impressed with
the progress thus far, especially in identifying the recent
occurrence of Israeli acute paralysis virus in damaged
colonies, I remain very concerned of the lack of concrete
findings and a final answer.
I hope our panelists today can shed some light on what may
be preventing swift action to stop the continuing decline of
bee colonies. The importance of bees and other pollinators
cannot be underestimated. Nearly 130 different crops totaling
over $15 billion in farm gate value depend on pollinators to
grow. In fact, in California, in my district particularly, our
top agricultural products such as almonds, walnuts, cherries,
melons and countless others are totally dependent on annual
pollination efforts from local honey bees. Simply put, if there
are no bees, there is no way for our nation's farmers to
continue to grow the high-quality nutritious food our country
relies on. This is a crisis we cannot afford to ignore.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Dennis A. Cardoza, a Representative in
Congress From California
Nearly two years ago now a number of farmers in my district brought
to my attention the difficulty they were having when procuring
honeybees for the annual pollination of their crops. At first, many
people--myself included-assumed that the rapid decline in the
pollinator population was an aberration-just a fluke perhaps. However,
in some regions across the country beekeepers were reporting 30-90%
losses in their honeybee colonies. But perhaps even more intriguing,
the bees seemed to simply disappear.
In February of last year, top Apiculture researchers, in
conjunction with USDA, termed this massive decline in honeybees as
``Colony Collapse Disorder'' and set out to pinpoint the cause of this
problem. Unfortunately, it turns out that bees are extremely complex
and highly sensitive insects. Their behavior patterns can be radically
affected by slight changes in the climate or weather and when exposed
to small amounts of certain pathogens and pesticides.
In March of 2007, I--along with my Ranking Member Mr. Neugebauer--
convened the first ever hearing on bees and Colony Collapse Disorder.
We heard from a number of experts in the field ranging from researchers
to beekeepers to farmers about the possible causes and potential
devastating effects on American agriculture.
Not much was known a year ago, other than there were a number of
potential causes including pathogens; parasites; environmental and
management stresses; and nutrition problems. But the hearing did
highlight the intense need for a dedicated Federal funding stream to
further study and investigate CCD and to support the continued
longevity of domestic pollinators.
We made notable progress towards this goal in the recent farm bill.
USDA will now encourage pollinator habitat development in all
conservation programs. Specifically in the EQIP program, the Secretary
is now authorized to give greater priority to conservation practices
that promote pollinator habitat. Additionally, millions of dollars were
authorized to conduct research on the various factors that may be
contributing to the health of honey bees and other pollinators,
including pathogen and pest surveillance. The farm bill also provided
for an increase in the capacity and infrastructure of USDA's current
Colony Collapse prevention efforts and requires an annual report to the
House and Senate Agriculture Committees detailing the progress the
Department has made in addressing colony losses. And finally, mandatory
funding will now be made available under the Specialty Crop Research
Initiative for honey bee health as it pertains to the specialty crop
industry.
Many of these provisions are directed specifically at Colony
Collapse Disorder, but it is important to recognize the plight of
America's beekeepers and honey producers. Many beekeepers in my
district have been financially and emotionally devastated by the rapid
loss of their bee colonies. The 2008 Farm Bill has made honey and honey
bee losses eligible for disaster assistance.
But all of these provisions are really stop-gap measures. What the
industry really needs are answers and solutions. Our last hearing
prompted USDA to develop an action plan for Colony Collapse Disorder.
While I am impressed with the progress thus far--especially in
identifying the occurrence of the Israeli acute paralysis virus in
damaged colonies, I remain very concerned about the lack of concrete
findings. I hope our panelists today can shed some light on what may be
preventing swift action to stop the continuing decline of bee colonies.
The importance of bees and other pollinators can NOT be
underestimated. Nearly 130 different crops--totally over $15 billion in
farm gate value--depend on pollination to grow. In fact, in California,
and in my district particularly, our top agricultural products such as
almonds, walnut, cherries, melons and countless others are totally
dependent on annual pollination efforts from local honey bees. Simply
put, if there are no bees, there is no way for our nation's farmers to
continue to grow the high quality, nutritious foods our country relies
on.
The Chairman. With that, I would like to turn this opening
statement over to my Ranking Member, Mr. Neugebauer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing today to provide the Horticulture and Organic
Agriculture Subcommittee with an update on pollinator health
and any progress being made to find the cause of the solution
to the Colony Collapse Disorder.
When this Subcommittee met about this issue last March, we
heard about new research and initiatives aimed at solving the
mystery behind the cause and solution of CCD. I look forward to
hearing an update about these programs and any development or
advancements in this issue and about any new research projects
that have begun since that hearing.
I was honored to serve on the conference committee for the
recently passed farm bill and am proud we were able to include
several provisions that address pollination, especially CCD.
The new Specialty Crop Research Initiative provides $230
million in mandatory funding for research and extension, which
includes research threads to pollinators. As we speak, USDA is
working to write the rules to implement these programs, and I
hope that the steps taken in the farm bill will serve the needs
of the pollinators and help protect this very important aspect
of agriculture.
While USDA is a very important component in combating CCD,
it is also critical that the private sector stakeholders become
active on this issue. I am encouraged to learn that some
proactive groups have already taken an active role in finding a
solution to CCD, and I look forward to learning more about how
the private sector and the government entities can work
together to find cause and treatment for CCD and in doing so
ensure the longevity of bees that pollinate crops for food,
fiber, beverage, condiments, species and medicines that we
consume and use on a daily basis. I appreciate the efforts of
the several agencies of the Department of Agriculture that have
taken a lead in research and dissemination of information
regarding Colony Collapse Disorder, and I encourage USDA and
its university and state partners to work closely with the bee
industry in an effort to work together to coordinate research
and disseminate the findings.
I look forward to learning more from researchers,
beekeepers, farmers and industry leaders here today. While you
may not yet understand the cause of the colony losses, you do
understand the importance of honey bee pollination in
agriculture and the Subcommittee benefits from your expertise.
With that, I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you
for your work with us on the farm bill. You did a fabulous job
and it is my pleasure to work with you on a regular basis on
this Committee.
I want to welcome our first panel today, and as such, we
have one of our Members who has a constituent on this panel,
and I am going to turn it over to Mr. Barrow to introduce his
constituent and then I will recognize the rest of the panel. So
Mr. Barrow, the floor is yours to recognize your constituent.
Mr. Barrow. Well, I thank the chair, and it is a point of
personal privilege to introduce Dr. Keith Delaplane, Professor
of Entomology at the University of Georgia. A technicality, Mr.
Chairman, he is no longer a constituent. My district no longer
includes the physical territory that houses the home offices
and campus of the University of Georgia, but coming from the
State of Georgia, I think it is fair to say that all of us
represent the University of Georgia to some extent or another.
In fact, I wish Brother Costa was here today so I could
congratulate him on his Bulldogs beating our Bulldogs yesterday
in the College Championship World Series.
It is a point of personal pride to me to introduce this
national champion in his field, Dr. Delaplane, who is here
basically to present the model that the University of Georgia
has developed in response to the USDA's RFP, which is the most
complex and robust proposal to me. It is why he has been
selected totally on the merits and without regard to this
Member. Dr. Delaplane, you can no longer vote for me, but I
want you to know, I can vote for you and I want to thank you
very much for what you do and thank you for your leadership in
this endeavor, and Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege. I
have to leave now to go to a hearing of my Committee on Energy
and Air Quality, so please accept my apologies for not being
able to stay but, Dr. Delaplane, thank you for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Barrow, and we all represent
the University of Georgia. They are a fine institution. I am
particularly proud that our Bulldogs beat your Bulldogs
yesterday because--
Mr. Barrow. I am going to have to teach you all how to say
``dogs.'' It is a two syllable word with a little more
emphasis, but you are coming along pretty good.
The Chairman. I will probably have to do that since my son
just enrolled this week in Southern High football in Maryland,
where they also are the Bulldogs, and so I will try and get
that down and I will keep practicing with you. Thank you, Mr.
Barrow, and we will make sure that we get you the testimony of
your witness and all the rest of them.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Foxx, I will be happy to yield to you for
an opening statement at this time, a short opening statement.
It is outside the parameters of what we laid out, but I would
be happy to accommodate you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIRGINIA FOXX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Foxx. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. The thing I want
to say is that I think I am probably the only former beekeeper
on the panel. My husband and I have been farmers all of our
lives, and we lost our bees. Actually I know why people are
losing their bees. We lost ours, too. We had nine hives and so
I have experience as a beekeeper, and I have just
extraordinarily strong feelings about this issue. I have made
several speeches on the floor about it, in fact, when I first
came to the Congress alerting people, so I want to thank all of
you for this. I have votes at 10:30 in the Education Committee
and so I am going to have to leave, but I just want the members
of the panel and the Members of the Committee to know of my
strong interest in this issue, both from my knowledge of the
problem as well as my personal experience.
I thank you very much for that indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Foxx, you are very welcome, and I didn't
realize that you had had this experience but certainly it is
very valuable to the Committee, and we will make sure we
consult you as we go forward on this. Thank you.
At this time I would like to introduce the other members of
our panel, and we are very delighted today to have Dr. Edward
Knipling, Ph.D. and administrator with the ARS, U.S. Department
of Agriculture here in Washington, D.C. Thank you, Doctor, for
being here with us today. Mr. Delaplane has already been
introduced by Mr. Barrow. We have Ms. Maryann Frazier, senior
extension associate with the Pennsylvania State University at
University Park, Pennsylvania. I would like to welcome all
three of our first panelists.
Dr. Knipling, please begin when you are ready, and let me
just read this following statement before you do begin. The
Chair would like to remind all Members that they are recognized
for questioning in order of seniority. Members who are here at
the start of the hearing will be recognized first. After that,
Members will be recognized in order of arrival, and I
appreciate the Members' understanding. Dr. Knipling.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. KNIPLING, Ph.D.,
ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. Knipling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am Edward Knipling, Administrator of the
Agricultural Research Service, which is the intramural research
agency of the Department of Agriculture, and thank you for this
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to present
testimony on USDA's efforts to improve pollinator health and
address the problem of Colony Collapse Disorder.
Mr. Chairman, you and others have already characterized the
CCD problem very well and the importance of honey bees and
other pollinators. Thus, I will only add at this point that the
2008 spring survey results following last winter indicate that
bee colony losses across the United States were an average of
about 36 percent compared to about 31 percent the year before
in 2007. These levels are about twice what were experienced by
beekeepers previously in so-called normal or typical years and
winters, and the additional losses of about 15 to 20 percent
over normal are being attributed to the CCD malady.
Numerous factors have been suggested as possible causes of
this problem. These include increased pressure from viruses and
other pathogens, parasites, environmental stresses, poor
nutrition, transport stresses and pesticides, among other
possible causes.
My comments today will focus principally on the progress of
research and planned activities by ARS and our sister agency,
the Cooperative, State, Research, Education and Extension
Service.
Although scientists have not yet identified definitively
the cause of CCD or a solution to the problem, they have
greatly increased our understanding of the nature of the
disorder and its potential contributing factors. For example,
research suggests that CCD follows the weakening of a colony
due to various stresses to the point that the colony cannot
rear a replacement brood in the spring. Studies on the immune
system response of bees support the hypothesis that CCD is
caused by an interaction of multiple factors stressing the
colony rather than any one single cause.
Along these lines in 2007, researchers identified a virus
known as the Israeli acute paralysis virus, which appears to
have a high degree of association with CCD, and further studies
suggest that a parasite, the Varroa mite, may be spreading the
virus to other bees. Researchers later observed high levels of
a different but potentially related virus in CCD samples.
Other studies have shown that affected colonies tend to
have elevated levels of other pathogens not commonly found in
bee colonies. Specifically, investigations have identified a
pathogen known as Nosema ceranae that infects bees in
significantly different ways than does Nosema apis, a species
long present in the United States.
Research has also focused on determining whether
pesticides, which remain a top concern among beekeepers, are
associated with CCD. This research has yet to confirm such as
association but these studies are continuing.
Research has also been directed to beekeeping management
practices, and progress in this area has been significant. A
new protein supplement diet has been developed and shown to
improve colony strength and protect against colony decline.
This research has also shown that supplemental diets
significantly improve the strength of colonies infected with
Varroa mites. Other research has provided the first documented
evidence of stress effects of long-distance transport of bee
colonies for pollination services.
In 2006, the honey bee genome was sequenced prior to
recognition of the CCD problem, and this genetic information is
now proving very timely and valuable to researchers to detect
and interpret immune response disorders in CCD-affected bees.
Additional genomic sequencing research is underway on the
suspected viruses and Nosema pathogens I mentioned earlier, and
comparative analysis of these genomes will be important to
understand the potential role in CCD and may lead to control
measures.
I will now comment on the USDA research capacity and
funding resources. ARS honey bee research is principally
carried out at four laboratories located in Louisiana,
Maryland, Arizona and Texas. This collective national honey bee
program is supported by an annual base budget of $7.7 million
of which 80 percent has been oriented since 2006 toward the CCD
problem and its probable causes. In addition to this base
funded research, $200,000 was provided to ARS scientists last
year to sequence the genomes of the major microbial pathogens
suspected of having a role in CCD.
Beginning this year in 2008, ARS has initiated what we are
calling the Areawide Project on Honey Bee Health. The
objectives of this 5-year project are to investigate the
effects of migratory beekeeping including nutrition and the use
of supplemental protein diets on honey bee health as well as
developing more resistant bee lines and better control methods
for honey bee pests. This project is being carried out by all
four ARS laboratories in cooperation with commercial beekeepers
and university partners and with base funding that is available
for ARS pest management research. This first year support is
$670,000, and funding for the subsequent 4 years will be about
$1 million per year.
The President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposals for ARS
requests $780,000 in new funding to enhance base program
support for honey bee health and CCD research.
CSREES, as the USDA extramural funding agency, is
supporting university research at significant levels. Already,
funds have been committed for five independent research and
extension projects related to honey bee genetics and diseases
and pesticide effects. Additionally, CSREES has recently
completed panel review of proposals for a sizable competitive
grant for multi-institutional honey bee health research and
expects to make a $4.1 million, 4-year award next month in
July. Overall, CSREES funding for CCD and bee health-related
research has risen from about $500,000 in Fiscal Year 2006 to
over $1 million in 2007, and funding this year is expected to
exceed $2.5 million. The President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget
also proposes to include an increase in the line item for
critical issues and plant and animal diseases of about $1.7
million, which will be expected to provide additional resources
for honey bee health.
As the Chairman has already noted, the newly enacted 2008
Farm Bill provides $30 million in mandatory funding this fiscal
year to be awarded competitively by CSREES for specialty crop
research, and the formal request for applications is expected
to be issued next month in July. A considerable number of
proposals related to honey bee health for specialty crops are
expected.
Subject to future appropriations, the new farm bill also
authorizes up to $20 million per year for the Fiscal Years 2008
through 2012 for honey bee and other pollinator research
extension and surveillance.
Before closing, I will now briefly comment on the
capabilities and activities of other USDA agencies relative to
CCD. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service proposes to
initiate the authorized national honey bee health and pest
survey to obtain data and determine trends on the extent and
possible causes of CCD. The Agricultural Marketing Service
provides a capability on a user-fee basis for pesticide testing
of agricultural samples, and AMS has already tested a number of
honey bee samples, but the data obtained to date do not appear
to associate pesticides conclusively in any way with CCD. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership and
assistance in establishing conservation areas and other
pollinator protection habitats which will be important for CCD
mitigation.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, even though research to date has
not produced a definitive finding on the cause or a solution to
the CCD problem, the research is making important progress
toward our understanding of the disorder, and these efforts are
continuing at an accelerating pace. USDA very much appreciates
Congress' interest in this issue, and I thank you once again
for the opportunity to appear before you. We very much value
also all of the cooperation and partnerships we have with
universities, the beekeeping industry, non-government
organizations and the like.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to address any
questions that you have at a later time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Knipling follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward B. Knipling, Ph.D., Administrator,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Edward Knipling,
Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which is the
intramural scientific research agency of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee
today to present testimony on USDA's efforts to improve pollinator
health and address the problem of colony collapse disorder, known as
CCD.
Background on CCD
As the members of the Subcommittee know, CCD is characterized by
the sudden decline of a honey bee colony and absence of dead bees.
Typically, all but a few bees disappear from a given colony's
population for no apparent reason. These unexplained losses were first
reported in the fall of 2006, with further investigations indicating
that the problem may have been occurring since at least 2005. Given the
critical role played by honey bees and other pollinators in plant
reproduction, resulting in $15 billion in added crop value to at least
30 percent of our Nation's crops, CCD poses a significant threat to the
U.S. beekeeping industry, food and honey production, and ecosystem
health.
In 2007, bee colony losses to CCD and other stressors were reported
to be 31 percent. Surveys to date in the 2008 season indicate losses of
about 36 percent, which is about twice the percentage of losses
sustained during a typical winter. Although beekeepers are still
meeting their pollination service contracts, the costs for pollination
of some crops such as almonds have more than doubled over the past few
years. Fortunately, the cost increases for other crops during off-peak
pollination periods have not been as dramatic.
Numerous factors have been suggested as possible causes of the CCD
malady. These include viruses and other pathogens, parasites,
environmental stresses, poor nutrition, transport stresses, and
pesticides among others.
USDA Leadership Efforts
Upon hearing reports of CCD in the fall of 2006, USDA began to
mobilize resources and bring university partners, honey and pollination
industry leaders, and other stakeholders together to approach the
problem. Working teams were formed to begin preliminary investigations
into CCD. These groups also met formally in February and April 2007 to
develop a comprehensive CCD Action Plan, which resulted in a framework
approach to solve the problem and identify available resources to
address research needs. The goals and objectives of the plan are
centered around four main components: survey and data collection;
sample analysis; hypothesis-driven research; and mitigation and
preventative measures.
Research
My comments today will focus principally on the progress of
research to date and ongoing and planned activities by ARS and our
sister agency the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES). CSREES is the primary extramural research funding
agency of USDA for universities, agricultural experiment stations, and
cooperative extension services across the Nation.
Although ARS and university scientists have not yet identified the
cause of CCD or a solution to the problem, they have greatly increased
our understanding of the nature of the disorder and its potential
contributing factors.
For example, research suggests that CCD follows the weakening of a
colony due to various stresses to the point that the colony cannot rear
replacement brood in the spring. Studies on the immune system response
of bees support the hypothesis that CCD is caused by an interaction of
multiple factors stressing the colony rather than by any one single
cause.
Along these lines, in 2007 researchers identified a virus, known as
the Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV), which appears to have a high
degree of association with CCD. Further studies suggest that a
parasite, the varroa mite, may be spreading the virus to other bees.
Researchers later observed high levels of a different, but potentially
related virus in CCD samples that is associated with IAPV. Although
additional work is needed to confirm a link between these viruses and
CCD, this research provides a basis for identifying important markers
for the disorder.
Additional studies have shown that CCD-affected colonies tend to
have elevated levels of other pathogens not commonly found in bee
colonies. Specifically, investigations have identified a pathogen known
as Nosema ceranae that infects bees in significantly different ways
than does Nosema apis, a species long present in the United States.
Research has also focused on determining whether pesticides, which
remain a top concern among beekeepers, are associated with CCD. This
research has yet to confirm such an association, but research will
continue to analyze bee samples for pesticide exposure to definitively
confirm or refute an alleged correlation.
In addition to pathogens, parasites, and pesticides, research has
also been directed to beekeeping management practices, which are
critical to honey bee health. Progress in this area has been
significant. A new protein supplement diet has been developed and shown
to improve colony strength and protect against colony decline. This
research has also shown that supplemental diets significantly improve
colony strength in colonies infested with varroa mites. Other research
has provided the first documented evidence of stress effects of long
distance transport of bee colonies for pollination services. These
studies will help establish critically-needed management strategies and
guidelines for beekeepers to improve the health and strength of their
bees as a protection against CCD.
In early 2006, the entire honey bee genome was sequenced prior to
recognition of the CCD problem. This genetic information is now proving
timely and invaluable to researchers to detect and interpret immune
response disorders in CCD affected bees. Additional genomic sequencing
research is underway on the suspected viruses and Nosema pathogens
previously mentioned. Bioinformatic analyses and comparisons of these
genomes will be important to understand their role in CCD and may lead
to control measures.
Research Capacity
ARS honey bee research is principally carried out at four bee
laboratories located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Beltsville, Maryland;
Tucson, Arizona; and Weslaco, Texas. We also conduct alternative
pollinator research at Logan, Utah. The collective national honey bee
research by ARS is supported by an annual base budget of $7.7 million,
of which 80 percent has been oriented since 2006 toward the CCD problem
and its probable causes. This research also includes breeding efforts
to improve honey bee resistance to varroa mites and other pests.
In addition to this base funded research, $200,000 was provided to
ARS scientists in 2007 to sequence the genomes of the major microbial
pathogens suspected of having a role in CCD.
Beginning this year in 2008, ARS has initiated what we are calling
the Areawide Project on Honey Bee Health. The objectives of this 5-year
project are to investigate the effects of migratory beekeeping,
including nutrition and use of supplemental protein diets, on honey bee
health, as well as developing more resistant bee lines and better
control methods for honey bee pests. This project is being carried out
by all four ARS bee laboratories in cooperation with commercial
beekeepers and university partners. Base funding is available from ARS
pest management research. First year support is $670,000. Funding for
subsequent years will be based upon available appropriations.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for ARS requests
$780,000 in new funding to enhance base program support for honey bee
health and CCD research. ARS also proposes to consolidate some of its
existing base program activity on honey bee research in order to
achieve a stronger critical mass of scientific effort and focus on the
CCD problem.
CSREES, as the USDA extramural funding agency, is also supporting
CCD research at significant levels. Already funds have been committed
for five independent research and extension projects relating to honey
bee genetics and diseases, and pesticides effects. Additionally, CSREES
has completed panel reviews of proposals for a sizeable competitive
grant for multi-institutional honey bee health research and expects to
make a $4.1 million, 4-year award in July 2008. Approximately $1.025
million will be provided each year. Overall, CSREES funding for CCD and
bee health related research has risen from $538,000 in fiscal year (FY)
2006 to over $1,000,000 in FY 2007, and funding will exceed $2.5
million in FY 2008. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal
for CSREES also includes an increase of $1,743,000 for the Critical
Issues in Plant and Animal Diseases line item which was used
extensively to mount the agency's initial response to the CCD crisis.
As this Subcommittee knows, the newly enacted 2008 Farm Bill
provides $30 million in mandatory funding this fiscal year, to be
awarded competitively by CSREES, for specialty crop research. CSREES
plans to issue the formal Request for Applications in July 2008.
Because honey bee pollination is important for many fruit, nut, and
vegetable crops, some proposals for honey bee health research related
to the CCD problem are anticipated to be received.
Subject to future appropriations, the new Farm Bill also authorizes
up to $20 million per year for the fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for
honey bee and other pollinator research, extension, and surveillance.
Other USDA Agencies
I would now like to briefly comment on the capabilities and
activities of other USDA agencies relevant to CCD. The Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposes to initiate the authorized
national honey bee health and pest survey to obtain data and determine
trends on the extent and possible causes of CCD. The Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) provides a capability on a user fee basis for
pesticide testing of agricultural samples. AMS has already tested a
limited number of dead honey bee samples, but the data obtained to date
do not appear to associate pesticides with CCD. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) facilitates the USDA Pollinator Protection
Committee, an 11-agency committee that provides leadership in
pollinator protection endeavors, including CCD mitigation. Among other
activities, in 2007 NRCS entered agreements with several national
pollinator protection efforts to assist at the national, regional,
state, and local levels to build awareness of and better address the
nesting and foraging needs of wild and managed pollinators, which may
serve as alternatives to honey bees.
Closing
Even though research to date has not produced a definitive finding
on the cause of or solution to the CCD problem, the research is making
important progress toward our understanding of the disorder. These
efforts are continuing across the Nation. USDA appreciates Congress'
recognition of the significance of colony collapse disorder and thanks
you for your support and the opportunity to testify before you today.
USDA also values our partnerships with universities, industry, and
other stakeholders in the collective efforts to safeguard honey bees,
the beekeeping industry, and U.S. agriculture. Mr. Chairman, this
concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions at
this time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Knipling. We will indeed have
the panel ask you a series of questions after our other
witnesses have had their opportunity to testify.
I wanted to inform the audience and the panel and the
Members of the Committee that we just got word from the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee that their Fiscal Year
2009 appropriation that will be coming out of that Subcommittee
will be $780,000 for specific work on the items that you
mentioned in your testimony and $10 million to your Department
in order to conduct general bee research. So that is what the
Subcommittee is working on, as we speak, and their hearing is
still ongoing, and as further updates become known, we will
pass that on too.
I wanted to also take a moment to digress from our
testimony and just recognize the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Peterson, who is here with us and has joined us
briefly. He is working on some other very important matters
today with regard to gas prices and he is going to have to
excuse himself, but while I have him here, this is the first
hearing that we have had post farm bill and I just wanted to
thank the Chairman for the unbelievably outstanding work that
you did getting that bill passed to completion. You have had
unbelievable burdens getting that bill passed but the country
is better off for its passage, and thank you on behalf of
everybody on the Committee for the work you did. Mr. Peterson,
if you have any statements, I would like to recognize you now.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Mr. Peterson. I thank the Chairman for the work he did and
the Ranking Member and all the Members of this Subcommittee and
our Committee. It wasn't just me, it was a team effort, and in
the end I think the bill isn't perfect but we were able to
accommodate concerns from all parts of the country, from all
aspects of agriculture, and as it relates to honey bees, which
I have some history with too. I used to have clients back when
I was in the CPA business that were in the honey bee business
and witnessed firsthand the trials and tribulations that those
people went through from year to year, and so we were pleased
to be able to raise the loan rates for honey to do some of the
research aspects, to make changes in conservation, which will
further support honey bees and a lot of those efforts and
credit goes to Mr. Cardoza and the Subcommittee for focusing on
this and to continue on this.
So I have a statement. I ask that it be made part of the
record, and thank you all for your leadership and we will keep
our eye on this situation and hopefully we will come up with
the right outcome. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress From Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Cardoza, for calling this hearing today and for
the great leadership you have shown as Chairman of the Horticulture and
Organic Agriculture Subcommittee, and for highlighting a health issue
that is crucial not just to beekeepers and producers, but to every
American who enjoys a balanced diet.
In March of last year, this Subcommittee held the first ever
Congressional hearing that focused exclusively on the honey bee
industry and their vital role as pollinators to the nation's food
supply.
The hearing focused on Colony Collapse Disorder, an epidemic that
is killing honey bees at a rapid rate nationwide. Despite a host of
theories, some credible and some not, the cause of CCD has yet to be
determined. It continues to be of great concern for beekeepers and
farmers who rely on bees to pollinate their crops.
I'm proud of the work that this Committee did in writing and
passing the farm bill to recognize the threat of CCD and how important
pollinators are to agriculture. The farm bill that was passed and
signed into law over the President's veto ensures that all Americans
have access to a safe, secure and inexpensive food supply.
That supply depends in large part to the presence and health of
honey bees, who are the most economically valuable pollinators of farm
crops in the world, with an estimated value in the tens of billions of
dollars. They contribute to the production of fruits, vegetables, nuts,
forage crops, and, of course, honey, accounting for almost one third of
all crop cash receipts in the United States.
Bee pollination roughly accounts for one third of the American
diet. And pollinators are crucial to the growing value-added market for
fruits and vegetables like organic products and local food networks,
which are also prioritized in the farm bill.
Recognizing the valuable role that pollinators play in our farm
economy, the farm bill has provisions across several of the bill's
fifteen titles to support beekeepers and Colony Collapse Disorder
research. Language in the farm bill research title prioritizes the
identification of causes and solutions for CCD, while expanding USDA's
infrastructure to be able to address CCD research for the long term. It
extends the honey marketing loan, which helps keep market prices
stable.
Conservation provisions in the bill will encourage habitat
development and protection for native and managed pollinators, ensuring
that technical assistance includes applicable standards. And provisions
affecting bees and pollinators were also added to the farm bill's crop
insurance and disaster assistance sections.
Despite some good signs, there are still vital concerns about CCD
and the future of pollinators. We are here to learn from researchers in
the field, beekeepers, and the producers who depend on pollinators for
the health of their crops, about the challenges they still face after
that March 2007 hearing. I welcome today's witnesses, I look forward to
their testimony, and I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
your hard work.
Now I would like to recognize Mr. Keith Delaplane,
Professor of the Department of Entomology at the University of
Georgia in Athens. Sir, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF KEITH S. DELAPLANE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, ATHENS, GA
Dr. Delaplane. Thank you. Chairman Cardoza and Members of
the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure and an honor to present to
you a summary of some of the research being planned in response
to pollinator decline. I am project director of a $4.1 million
proposal to the USDA CSREES NRI competitive grants program
targeted for managed pollinators. The proposal falls under the
category of a Coordinated Agricultural Project, or CAP, and CAP
proposals must address problems of national concern in a
coordinated program of research and knowledge delivery. By
inviting CAP proposals in managed pollinators in 2008, CSREES
has rightly prioritized pollinator decline as a matter of
public interest, and we are pleased to be informed that our
proposal has been recommended for funding by the review panel.
The team comprising our CAP project represents 17
institutions including 14 land-grant universities, one 1980
school, one ARS lab and one state lab, and the following are
specific objectives. First, to determine and mitigate causes of
CCD. This will include studying the interactive effects of
disease agents and environmental factors on honey bee health.
Second, to incorporate genetic traits that help honeybees
resist pathogens and parasitic mites and to increase genetic
diversity of commercial stocks. Third, to improve conservation
and management of non-Apis pollinators by identifying new or
emerging pathogens and parasites, abiotic stresses and
practices that optimize their pollinating efficiency. Fourth,
to deliver research knowledge to client groups by developing a
technology transfer program for queen breeders and literature
on best management and conservation practice for managed
pollinators and queen breeders.
In forming these objectives, we placed priority on
identifying causes of pollinator decline. At this time, CCD
cannot be assigned rigorously to any one definitive cause.
However, pollinator decline has been the focus of worldwide
research for decades, and we do have good starting points in
our search for a definitive cause. There is evidence, for
instance, that new or emerging bee viruses and pathogenic
microsporidia contribute to honey bee morbidity, and in our
proposal we have chosen to focus on four: Israeli acute
paralysis virus, deformed wing virus, Nosema ceranae and Nosema
apis. It is likely that these viruses and microsporidia
interact negatively with other more familiar honey bee problems
such as Varroa mites, tracheal mites, pesticides, both in hive
and out, and stresses associated with migratory beekeeping.
Similar to experiments on honey bees, another set of studies
will tease apart the risks to non-honey bees from pathogens and
field-exposed pesticides.
A similar priority has been placed on mitigating pollinator
decline and optimizing bee management. For instance, one of our
native pollinators, the bumble bee, Bombus impatiens, will be
the focus of experiments to identify management practices that
optimize its pollinator performance in the field. We have also
placed high priority on advancing the powerful advantages of
genetic host resistance. There is rich literature on classical
bee genetics augmented with new advances in genomics that place
within our reach the prospect of identifying genes responsible
for honey bee resistance, genetically marking individuals that
carry those genes and selectively propagating them.
The knowledge delivery mandate will be met in large part by
the extension activities of our team. However, it will also be
addressed more deliberately by creating a new literature on
best management practices for honey bee managers and non-honey
bee managers and queen breeders. The vehicle for delivering
these publications will be the web-based platform extension. We
will share this platform with our sister group, the ARS
Areawide Project, which has been already alluded to this
morning.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, it is my wish to affirm this
Subcommittee and CSREES for their vision in prioritizing
pollinator decline as a fundable problem in 2008. I have
showcased the NRI CAP program as a model for addressing
problems of national concern. In developing our CAP project, we
have emphasized candidate disorders for which there is strong
evidence that they contribute significantly to bee decline. It
remains to test these candidate factors alone and in
combination to discover the chief causes of bee decline. Our
mitigation efforts will focus on genetic host resistance and
developing best management practices based on research flowing
from our CAP and from the ARS Areawide Project.
Rarely has the opportunity been better for American bee
scientists to work together across university and Federal
boundaries on a problem of such magnitude and national
significance. It is to be hoped that Federal assistance will be
sustained in a strategic and long-term manner, permitting bee
science to mature and engender healthier bee populations across
the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Delaplane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith S. Delaplane, Ph.D., Professor of
Entomology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure
and honor to present to you a summary of some of the research being
planned in response to pollinator decline. I am a professor of
entomology at the University of Georgia, and my research specialty is
pollination and honey bee management. I am also Project Director of a
$4.1 million proposal to the USDA CSREES NRI competitive grants program
targeted for Managed Pollinators. This proposal falls under the
category of a Coordinated Agricultural Project, or CAP. CAP proposals
must address assigned problems of national concern in a coordinated
program of research and knowledge delivery. CAP proposals must address
the problem with linkages that are multi-institutional and multi-
disciplinary and relatively lengthy, in our case 4 years. CAP proposals
must identify and eliminate redundancies and design research that
builds naturally and progressively upon earlier discoveries. The
knowledge delivery component is integral, designed, deliberate, and
outcome-oriented. The CAP model has proven an effective means of
addressing national-scale problems such as Porcine Reproductive and
Respiratory Syndrome and Avian Influenza. By inviting CAP proposals in
Managed Pollinators in 2008, the CSREES NRI competitive grants program
has rightly prioritized pollinator decline as a matter of public
interest. We're pleased to be informed that our proposal was
recommended for funding by the review panel.
The team comprising our CAP project represents 17 institutions
including 14 land-grant universities, one 1890 school, one ARS lab, and
one state lab. Eleven of the 19 team members have whole or partial
appointments in agricultural extension. Thus, the CAP knowledge
delivery component is integral to the makeup of the team.
Here are the objectives of our project:
1. Determine and mitigate causes of CCD: study the interactive
effects of disease agents (pathogens, parasites) and
environmental factors (pesticides, nutrition) on honey bee
health.
2. Incorporate traits that help honey bees resist pathogens and
parasitic mites and increase genetic diversity of commercially
available stocks.
3. Improve conservation and management of non-Apis pollinators by
identifying new or emerging pathogens and parasites, abiotic
stresses, and practices that optimize their pollinating
efficacy.
4. Deliver research knowledge to client groups by developing a
technology transfer program for queen breeders and a literature
on Best Management and Conservation Practices for managed
pollinators and queen breeders as an eXtension Community of
Practice.
In forming our objectives, priority was placed on identifying
causes of pollinator decline. At this time, honey bee Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD) cannot be rigorously assigned to any definitive causes.
However, bee morbidity and pollinator decline have been the focus of
worldwide research for decades, and we have good starting points in our
search for definitive causes. There is strong evidence that new or
emerging bee viruses contribute significantly to honey bee morbidity.
In our proposal we have chosen to focus on two: Israeli Acute Paralysis
Virus and Deformed Wing Virus. Similarly, there is strong and recent
evidence for bee morbidity from Nosema ceranae, a single-celled
microsporidian pathogen recently introduced into Europe and North
America, presumably from southeast Asia. It is likely that viruses and
microsporidia, whether new to our continent or latent, interact
negatively with more familiar honey bee problems such as parasitic
Varroa mites and tracheal mites, pesticides both in-hive and out-, and
stresses associated with intense migratory commercial beekeeping
practices. Similar to these experiments on honey bees, another set of
studies will tease apart the risks to non-honey bees from pathogens and
field-exposed pesticides. At this stage in our understanding of bee
decline, it is necessary to include numerous interaction experiments to
discover the major contributors of bee morbidity and the extent to
which they act singly or in synergy.
In forming our objectives, a similar priority was placed on
mitigating causes of pollinator decline and optimizing bee management.
These objectives include research, but also represent our heaviest
investments in knowledge delivery. In the interest of minimizing our
reliance on chemical remedies, we have placed a high priority on
advancing the powerful advantages of genetic host resistance. There is
a rich literature on classical bee genetics, augmented with new
advances in genomics that place within our reach the prospect of
identifying genes responsible for honey bee resistance to disorders,
genetically marking individuals that carry those genes, and selectively
propagating them. Our proposal includes research that moves us in this
direction as well as initiatives for delivering improved stock to bee
breeders and for training them in classical selection techniques. One
of our native pollinators, the bumble bee Bombus impatiens, will be the
focus of experiments to identify management practices that optimize its
pollinator performance in the field.
The knowledge delivery mandate will be met in large part by the
extension activities of our team members, most of whom have at least a
partial extension appointment. However, the mandate will be addressed
more deliberately by creating a new literature on Best Management
Practices for honey bee managers, non-honey bee managers, and queen
breeders. The primary vehicle for delivering these publications will be
the web-based eXtension platform http://about.extension.org/, which on
its homepage is described as ``. . . an Internet-based collaborative
environment where Land Grant University content providers exchange
objective, research-based knowledge to solve real challenges in real
time.'' The ``content providers,'' or Communities of Practice, are each
a delimited group of content specialists who use the eXtension platform
to jointly write, edit, peer-review, and publish knowledge-based
extension literature. Our CAP team has agreed to join forces with our
sister group, the ARS Areawide Project, to form one Managed Pollinator
Community of Practice. This combined website will be the chief conduit
through which new knowledge from our research flows to beekeepers and
crop growers who need real answers to the problem of pollinator
decline.
In summary, it is my wish to affirm this Subcommittee and CSREES
for their vision in prioritizing pollinator decline as a fundable
problem in 2008. I have showcased the NRI CAP program as a model for
addressing problems of national concern through a synthesis of multi-
disciplinary research and outcome-oriented knowledge delivery. In
developing our CAP project, we have emphasized candidate disorders for
which there is strong evidence that they contribute significantly to
bee decline. It remains to test these candidate factors, alone and in
interaction, to discover the chief causes of bee decline. Our
mitigation efforts focus on genetic host resistance and developing Best
Management Practices based on research flowing from our CAP and from
the ARS Areawide Project.
Rarely has the opportunity been better for American bee scientists
to work together across university and federal boundaries on a problem
of such magnitude and national significance. It is to be hoped that
federal assistance will be sustained in a strategic and long-term
manner, permitting bee science to mature and engender healthier bee
populations across the United States.
Key Personnel, Their Institutions, and Roles in the Managed Pollinator
CAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Investigator Role
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith S. Delaplane, Univ GA, Project Director; Exercise general
All years oversight of the project and do
Objectives 1.9 (Varroa IPM) and 4.3
(queen market).
Kate Aronstein, ARS, Weslaco, Objectives 1.1 (Nosema), 1.3 (stationary
TX, All years apiary), and 2.1 (ID genes). Dr.
Aronstein will manage the Texas
replicate of the stationary apiaries,
collaborate with T. Webster and L.
Solter on Nosema ceranae infection and
analyze bee samples with qRT-PCR to
estimate differences in immune response
between infected and healthy bees.
Microarrays will be done by C.
Grozinger.
Anne Averill, Univ MA, All Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3 (non-
years Apis pathogens in stationary apiaries),
3.1 (non-Apis pathogens), 3.2 and 3.3
(non-Apis toxicology). Dr. Averill will
study insecticide effects on non-Apis
bees and coordinate flow of non-Apis
deliverables to eXtension.
Nick Calderone, Cornell Univ, Objective 2.2 (Genetic diversity). Dr.
Years 1-3 Calderone will study genetic variability
of northern bee populations. Desirable
germplasm will be sent to G. Hunt and to
S. Sheppard for use in their research.
Dr. Calderone will develop eXtension
protocols for stock selection and
conduct bee breeding workshops.
Diana Cox-Foster, PA State, Objectives 1.2 (IAPV, DWV), 1.3 (Apis
All years pathogens in stationary apiaries), 1.4
(diagnostics) and 1.5 (pathogen voucher
collection). Dr. Cox-Foster will have
lead roles in the diagnostic,
curatorial, and diagnostic development
aspects of these Objectives.
Robert Danka, ARS, Baton Dr. Danka's lab will phenotype bees for
Rouge (non-funded) Varroa-Sensitive Hygiene and conduct
gene expression assays in collaboration
with Hunt and Spivak in association with
Objective 2.1 (ID genes).
Frank Drummond, Univ ME, All Objectives 1.3 (stationary apiary), 3.4
years (Bombus management), and 3.5 (economics
of non-Apis). Dr. Drummond will manage
the Maine replicate of the stationary
apiaries and do original studies on
pollinating efficacy of Bombus impatiens
and local-scale habitat restoration.
Brian Eitzer, CT Ag Exp Sta, Conduct toxicology in Objectives 1.3
All years (Apis stationary apiaries) and 3.3 (non-
Apis).
Marion Ellis, Univ NE, Years Objective 1.6 (pesticide synergies and
1-2 sub-lethals). Dr. Ellis will recruit and
mentor the post-doc assigned to this
work, supervise its execution, analyze
data, complete reports, and channel
relevant deliverables to eXtension. His
budget will support the services of his
colleague Dr. Blair Siegfried,
Professor, Univ Nebraska.
Christina Grozinger, NC State Objective 2.1 (ID genes). Dr. Grozinger
Univ, Year 3 will be responsible for microarray
analyses of Nosema-infected bees
collected by K. Aronstein and the Nosema-
infected resistant and sensitive bees
used in the QTL analysis by G. Hunt
(Purdue).
Zachary Huang, MI State Univ, Objective 1 (Nosema). Dr. Huang will
All years cooperate with T. Webster, L. Solter,
and K. Aronstein on aspects of Nosema-
induced morbidity of honey bees.
Greg Hunt, Purdue Univ, All Executive Committee; Objectives 1.4
years (diagnostics) and 2.1 (ID genes). Dr.
Hunt will develop probes for single-
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs),
determine SNP genotypes throughout the
genome, map quantitative trait loci
(QTL), and identify genes for
resistance. In addition, Dr. Hunt will
coordinate with M. Spivak and T. Webster
to develop crosses for QTL mapping and
with C. Grozinger to analyze gene
expression. Dr. Hunt will direct
deliverables from the genetics goal to
eXtension.
Chris Mullin, PA State, Years Objective 1.7 (pesticide metabolites).
3-4 Dr. Mullin will provide project
leadership for the sublethal behavioral
bioassays. He will be assisted (non-
funded) by M. Frazier who will supervise
extension communications and by J.L.
Frazier who will provide leadership on
measures of chemosensory cells.
Nancy Ostiguy, PA State, All Executive Committee; Objectives 1.2
years (IAPV, DWV) and 1.3 (stationary apiary).
Dr. Ostiguy will manage the PA replicate
of the stationary apiaries and be
responsible for descriptive epidemiology
of IAPV and DWV, provide overall
guidance on the stationary colony
project, and assist D. Cox-Foster with
pathogen molecular biology. She will
direct deliverables from the CCD goal to
eXtension.
Steve Sheppard, WA State Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3
Univ, All years (stationary apiary) and 2.2 (Genetic
diversity). Dr. Sheppard will manage the
WA replicate of the stationary apiaries,
characterize genetic diversity in U.S.
honey bee populations with emphasis on
the western and southern U.S. and
Australia. Comparisons will be made with
previous U.S. collections of commercial
stocks and a concurrent database from
northern producers (N. Calderone).
J. Skinner, Univ TN, All Executive Committee; Objective 4.1
years (establish eXtension Community of
Practice). Dr. Skinner will set up a
Managed Pollinator Community of Practice
on eXtension, coordinate receipt of
deliverables from co-investigators, and
facilitate its delivery on the eXtension
website.
Leellen Solter, IL Natural Objectives 1.1 (Nosema-induced bee
History Survey, Years 1-2 morbidity), 1.2 (Nosema interactions
with biotics and other stressors). Dr.
Solter will take the lead on Nosema with
experiments in collaboration with Drs.
Huang, Ostiguy, Cox-Foster, Webster, and
Aronstein.
Marla Spivak, Univ MN, All Executive Committee; Objectives 1.3
years (stationary apiary), 2.1 (ID genes), and
4.2 (queen market). Dr. Spivak will
manage the MN replicate of the
stationary apiaries, assist G. Hunt and
B. Danka in phenotyping VSH bees, and
lead CA queen breeding workshops.
Kirk Visscher, Univ CA, All Objective 1.3 (stationary apiary). Dr.
years Visscher will manage the CA replicate of
the stationary apiaries.
Tom Webster, KY State Univ, Objectives 1.1 (Nosema), 1.4
All years (diagnostics), and 2.1 (ID genes). Dr.
Webster will conduct comparative
bioassays on the virulence of Nosema
apis and Nosema ceranae and interactions
with other stressors. Bees infected with
N. apis, infected with N. ceranae, or
not infected will be sent to K.
Aronstein for immune assays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony.
I would now like to recognize Ms. Maryann Frazier, Senior
Extension Associate with the University of Pennsylvania at
University Park, Pennsylvania. Welcome, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARYANN T. FRAZIER, SENIOR EXTENSION ASSOCIATE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
Ms. Frazier. Good morning. Chairman Cardoza and Members of
the Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture, thank
you for the opportunity to be here today and to bring you up to
date on CCD, pollinator health and our land-grant universities'
efforts to address this critical issue.
I want to thank this Committee for the critical research
funding that has been allocated to the land-grant system to
work on pollinator health and CCD to date. This includes over
$300,000 in CSREES critical issues funding and the pending $4.1
million CAP grant. In addition, I want to acknowledge the
extraordinary level of cooperation between several land-grant
universities, state departments of agriculture and the USDA to
address this critical problem.
However, I do believe the magnitude and timeliness of this
response has not matched the scale and urgency needed to save
an industry valued at $15 billion. A quote by one of our CCD
working team colleagues helps put this situation into
perspective: ``How would our government respond if one out of
every three cows was dying.''
After facing almost 2 years of CCD ravaging the beekeeping
pollinator industry, we would like to propose five additional
action items that, if taken, could immediately move critical
research forward and help our beekeepers survive this difficult
time. These actions in turn would ensure ongoing pollination
services to the fruit, nut, seed and vegetable industry, and
thus provide an uninterrupted supply of reasonably priced fresh
fruits and vegetables to consumers. These action items include
reducing the cost of pesticide analytical services provided by
the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service to both USDA and
university researchers working on pollinator health,
particularly the pesticide angle, creating a new USDA critical
issues program to develop alternative control methods for
Varroa mites, provide additional authorized funding aimed at
understanding pollinator decline and improving pollinator
health, providing direct financial assistance to beekeepers
suffering from hive losses, and directing APHIS to immediately
implement a national survey for honey bee diseases, and
increased screening for diseases on imported bees.
Despite significant efforts over the past 18 months on the
part of the USDA, state departments of agriculture and land-
grant universities, we have yet to understand this most recent
manifestation of pollinator die-off, CCD. Its cure and its
cause remain unknown. Important funding to address this problem
has been received from the beekeeping industry, in particular,
the National Honey Board and beekeeping organizations, the
Pennsylvania and Florida departments of agriculture, the
Pennsylvania State University HATCH funds, USDA CSREES, Haagen-
Dazs and many concerned public groups and individuals.
While the CCD team has not been able to identify, as you
already heard, a single factor responsible for CCD, we feel
that factors likely working together include pathogens,
pesticides, poor nutrition and Varroa mites. These are
stressing the bees and the beekeepers beyond their ability to
cope. This scenario makes the situation far more complex and
difficult to understand and to fix. However, current studies
are underway to evaluate the pathogenicity of IAPV with
additional field studies planned through the CAP, two long-term
studies following 260 colonies in different migratory
operations that is being conducted by a multi-institutional
effort including Penn State, Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture, North Carolina State University and the USDA.
Over the past 18 months, our research group at Penn State
has worked on the question of whether or not pesticides are
responsible for CCD specifically and pollinator decline in
general. This work would not be possible without the assistance
of chemist Roger Simonds and the services of the USDA
analytical lab in Gastonia, North Carolina, and of course, our
other CCD working group members.
In 2007, we analyzed pollen, wax and bees for pesticide
residues. In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46
different pesticides including 6 of their metabolites were
identified. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a
single pollen sample. Samples contained on average five
different pesticide residues. Only 3 of these 108 had no
detectable pesticides. We fear this large number and multiple
kinds of pesticides could result in potential toxic
interactions for which there are no scientific data to date.
Also, these chronic levels of pesticide need further
investigation with regard to their potential interaction with
other stressors like IAPV in order to determine their potential
contribution to CCD. From February 2007 to the present, 60
percent of our available funds have gone to pay the USDA for
pesticide analytical services. If this service could be
provided at reduced cost, it would allow us to redirect our
limited research dollars to understanding the impacts
pesticides are having on bees and other pollinators.
For most of the last 20 years, U.S. beekeepers have had
only two registered chemical miticides to combat the most
significant honey bee pest in the world, the Varroa mite. There
has been significantly little effort put into biological
control alternatives. For our beekeeping industry to survive,
we must have safe, alternative Varroa mite controls. This will
only happen if significant new resources are focused in this
direction. In an effort to keep their bees and their businesses
alive and to meet their pollination contracts, our beekeepers
have pushed themselves and their bees to the limits
financially, emotionally and physically. Direct financial
assistance is overdue and is critical to their survival or next
year's agricultural pollination needs may not be met.
I thank you for this opportunity to provide you this
testimony, and would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Frazier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maryann T. Frazier, Senior Extension Associate,
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA
Introduction
Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee on Horticulture
and Organic Agriculture,
I would like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to be
here today and bring you up to date on CCD, pollinator health, and our
land-grant universities' efforts to address these critical issues.
As the Senior Extension Associate at Penn State, specializing in
apiculture for the past 20 years, I have had the opportunity to work
closely with beekeepers as well as university and USDA researchers
involved in honey bee research. I am also a beekeeper and am intimately
involved in scientific research dealing with the health and
productivity of honey bees and other pollinators. I believe this gives
me a unique perspective and understanding of the challenges faced by
both groups. I am also a founding member of the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture
Research and Extension Consortium (MAAREC). This group, established in
1997, is focused on addressing the pest management crisis facing the
beekeeping industry in the Mid-Atlantic Region. I have worked in the
regulatory arena as the assistant state apiary inspector in Maryland
and as a beekeeping specialist in Africa and Central America. In
addition I am one of the members of the CCD working team that formed in
response to the latest threat to honey bee health.
I want to thank this Committee for the critical research funding
allocated to work on honey bee health and CCD since this Committee
first met in March 2007. This includes $321,932 in CSREES critical
issues funding awarded to Penn State and the University of Georgia and
the pending $4.1 million CAP grant that will fund work on pollinator
health at several collaborating universities. However I believe the
magnitude and timeliness of the response has not matched the scale and
the urgency needed to save an industry valued at more than $14 billion.
A quote by one of our CCD working team colleagues helps put the
situation into perspective, ``How would our government respond if one
out of every three cows was dying?'' While this Committee held it first
timely hearing in March of 2007, the funding that has been allocated to
date falls far short of the time sensitive and potentially catastrophic
nature of this problem.
After facing almost two years of CCD ravaging the beekeeping and
pollination industries, we would like to propose five additional
``action items'' that if taken, could immediately move critical
research forward and help our beekeepers survive this difficult time.
These actions would, in turn, help ensure on-going pollination services
to the fruit, nut, seed and vegetable industries across the US and thus
provide reasonably priced fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers with
minimal interruption.
These actions include:
(1) Reducing the cost of pesticide analytical services provided by
USDA Ag Marketing Services to USDA and University researchers
working on pollinator health.
(2) Creating a new USDA critical issues program to develop
alternative control methods for Varroa mites
(3) Providing additional funding aimed at understanding pollinator
decline and improving pollinator health that includes native
species of pollinators
(4) Providing direct financial assistance to beekeepers suffering
from high losses
(5) Directing APHIS to immediately implement a national survey for
honey bee diseases
Justification
Due to our current agricultural methods, including the
establishment of large monocultures and the use of insecticides and
herbicides, wild pollinators are largely absent from cropping systems
that require insect pollination. For this reason, growers depend on
beekeepers to move their honey bee colonies in and out of crops during
bloom. The contribution of honey bees to agriculture production in the
US is valued at $14 billion annually. However, according to the latest
Apiary Inspectors of America and USDA/ARS survey, losses of managed
colonies nationwide topped 36 percent in 2008, compared to a 31 percent
loss during the same period last year. Despite significant efforts over
the past year and a half on the part of USDA, state departments of
agriculture, and land-grant university researchers to understand the
most recent manifestations of pollinator die-offs, Colony Collapse
Disorder, its cause and cure remain unknown.
Status and Progress to date
Government, industry and the private sector have mobilized to
address this problem. Important timely funding to address this problem
has been received from the beekeeping industry, in particular the
National Honey Board and beekeeping organizations, the Pennsylvania and
Florida Departments of Agriculture, The Pennsylvania State University
(HATCH funds), USDA; CSRESS, Haagen-Dazs, and many concerned public
groups and individuals. Two grants totaling $250,000 from Haagen-Dazs
were made to Penn State and UC Davis. At Penn State, an additional 252
gifts from individuals, foundations and small businesses have been made
totaling $52,884. Of these, 150 gifts totaling $7,300 were made as a
direct result of the Haagen-Dazs web site. This creative effort to
support research into pollinator decline and public education on the
importance of pollinators is relatively new and additional funding is
expected as a result of this unique effort initiated by Haagen-Dazs.
However many of the research and education activities to date have
relied on short-term and somewhat uncertain funding sources.
Critical ongoing research projects by the CCD working team include
the potential role of IAPV as a major contributing factor causing CCD.
The initial work identifying IAPV would not have been possible without
the assistance of Dr. Ian Lipkin and resources from a Northeast
Biodefense grant from NIH awarded to Columbia University. Since this
work is not directly related to human health, this significant
contribution to CCD research has ended. Studies are underway to
evaluate the pathogenicity of IAPV to honey bees in a controlled
greenhouse; additional studies are planned for field studies through
the CAP grant. A recent survey of bee colonies from 11 states has
revealed that IAPV is more widely distributed than previously observed;
however, it and other viruses are regarded as being major contributors
to colony death.
Two long-term studies following 260 colonies in different migratory
operations was initiated and conducted by a multi-institutional team
including PSU, PDA, NCS and the USDA. Over the course of this
experiment 3,702 samples were collected while the health of these
colonies was assessed over time. Some of these samples are now being
tested for levels of parasites, viruses, and pesticide residues. These
long-term studies have also highlighted several other previously
undescribed conditions in honey bee colonies that appear to have a
negative impact on colony health, such as ``entombed'' pollen. Theses
samples will also be an invaluable resource when we begin to test the
predictive value of diagnostic tests which are presently in the final
stages of development. For instance, based on the autopsies of several
thousand bees, we hope to develop a CCD diagnostic test based on gross
symptoms. When this diagnostic key is finalized it can be tested
against samples in storage to validate the tests ability to predict
disease outbreak. The USDA/ARS, PDA and PSU have also initiated studies
to develop practical and effective ways for beekeepers to control
parasitic infections, such as Nosema and Varroa mites.
Ongoing research into the role of pesticides in pollinator decline
and CCD includes a study to track colonies heath and pesticide exposure
in three Pennsylvania apple orchards, the use of gamma radiation to
mitigate pesticide build-up in wax combs and foundation, lab bioassays
on the synergistic effects of multiple pesticide residues and the
potential impacts of pesticide adjuvants.
At present, the CCD team has not been able to identify a single
cause for CCD. We are now performing a multi-factorial analysis on the
data set resulting from the initial CCD sample collection. Over 180
analyses were preformed on a common set of colonies by more than seven
different laboratories. We are hopeful that the multi-factorial
analysis will highlight those factors, which, in combination, might
explain CCD. Factors likely working together, including the recently
identified IAPV plus the parasitic microsporidia and Kashmir Bee Virus,
pesticides, poor nutrition, and varroa mites are stressing the bees
(and the beekeepers) beyond their abilities to cope. This scenario
makes the situation far more complex and difficult to understand and to
``fix.'' However, the potential ramifications of not understanding the
collapse of our biological systems, in this case, pollinators are huge
and potentially disastrous on many levels, including the sustainability
of our food supply as we know it.
The Potential Role of Pesticides
As the original member of the CCD working team charged with
investigating the potential role of pesticides in CCD, I have, over the
past 18 months worked closely with chemist and toxicologist, Dr. Chris
Mullin, and physiologist Dr. Jim Frazier on the question of whether or
not pesticides are contributing to pollinator decline in general and
CCD specifically. This work would not be possible without the
assistance of chemist Roger Simonds and the services of the USDA,
Agricultural Marketing Service, National Science Laboratory in Gastonia
NC and our CCD working team colleagues and their teams; especially
Dennis vanEngelsdorp from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture/
PSU and Dr. Jeff Pettis with the USDA/ARS in Beltsville MD.
Honey bee exposure to chemical pesticides has long been a concern
of beekeepers and growers alike. Over one half of our 2.4 million
colonies is utilized for crop pollination and typically employed on
several different crops per season. These colonies are at risk of
exposure to the pesticides used by growers to control pest insects,
diseases and weeds. Beekeeper use of miticides within the beehive to
control varroa mites is cause for concern due to their potential
impacts on developing bees (especially queens) and contamination of
hive products. In the past, pesticide poisoning of honey bees has been
associated with lethal exposure and the obvious symptom of a pile of
dead bees in front of the hive. We are becoming increasingly concerned
that pesticides may affect bees at sublethal levels, not killing them
outright, but rather impairing their behaviors and their abilities to
fight off infections. For example, pesticides at sublethal levels have
been shown to impair the learning abilities of honey bees and to
suppress their immune systems. For these reasons, we believe that
pesticide exposure may be one of the factors contributing to pollinator
decline and to CCD.
In 2007 we analyzed pollen, wax and bees for pesticide residues. A
significant number of samples analyzed were from operations impacted by
CCD and control operations (not impacted by CCD) that were collected by
members of the CCD working team as part of a larger CCD study.
Additional samples were collected from honey bee colonies placed in
specific Pennsylvania apple orchards (PSU field study) and a third
source was pollen, wax or bees submitted by beekeepers who placed their
bees in specific crops, or who were concerned about the declining
health of their colonies.
In a total of 108 pollen samples analyzed, 46 different pesticides
including six of their metabolites were identified. Up to 17 different
pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average
of 5 different pesticide residues each. Only three of the 108 pollen
samples had no detectable pesticides. In a total of 88 wax samples
analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites
were identified. As was found in pollen, fluvalinate, coumaphos,
chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, were the most commonly
detected pesticides with fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of
the samples.
Unprecedented amounts of fluvalinate (up to 204 ppm) at high
frequencies have been detected in brood nest wax, and pollen (bee
bread). Changes in the formulation of fluvalinate over time resulting
in a significant increase in toxicity to honey bees, makes this a
serious concern. The large numbers and multiple kinds of pesticides
that have been found could result in potentially toxic interactions for
which there are no scientific studies to date. European researchers
have found similar pesticides and frequencies in hive matrices and
express similar concerns. Also these chronic levels of pesticides in
pollen and wax at potentially acute toxicity levels need further
investigation with regard to their potential interactions with other
stressors (e.g., IAPV) and their potential contribution to CCD.
Closing Remarks
We know that pesticides are present in the food the bees are
consuming, in the wax combs where they develop and live, and in the
bees themselves. What we don't know is how these chemical residues are
affecting the bees. From February 2007 to the present, $247,334 has
been committed to our work on pesticide research. Of the $96,000 spent
to date, $57,683 or 60% has been paid to the UDSA for pesticide residue
analysis. If this service could be provided at a reduced cost, it would
allow us to redirect our limited research dollars to understanding the
impact pesticides are having on honey bees and other pollinators.
For most of the last 20 years US beekeepers have had essentially
only two registered chemical miticides to combat the most significant
honey bee pest in the world, the varroa mite. Granted three ``soft''
materials have been registered more recently, but these are of limited
use for our large commercial beekeepers. These materials require
specific time and temperatures to work and often give sporadic results
not amenable to migratory operations. There has been little effort
invested in finding biologically-based alternatives to pesticides,
including the most promising, the development of bees resistant to
mites. Thus, the varroa mite, known to transmit diseases, possibly
including the newly identified IAPV, and to impair the honey bee immune
system has been largely ignored by industry and researchers, thus
beekeepers have been left to their own devices to try to control it.
Additionally, the chemical miticides being used to control varroa
mites, accumulate in the wax combs and pollen reserves and are possibly
contributing to the bee's demise as much as they are controlling the
mites. For the beekeeping industry to survive we must have safe,
effective varroa mite control methods. This will only happen if
significant new resources are focused in this direction.
While in the long run honey bees will most likely survive, our
beekeepers may not. In an effort to keep their bees alive and their
businesses afloat, and to meet critical pollination contracts they have
pushed themselves to the limits financially, emotionally and physically
during the past 18 months. Direct financial assistance is overdue, and
is critical to their survival, or next years agricultural pollination
needs will not be met. One immediate small step would be to exempt
beekeepers from paying the sugar tariff on sugar used to feed their
bees. I urge the Committee to consider these five suggestions for
improving our efforts to find the cause or causes for CCD and save our
pollination industry before it is too late.
I thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony and would be
happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Frazier. Your testimony is
compelling. I am sure that Members will have significant
questions.
I am going to open it up for questions at this time and I
will begin the questioning with Dr. Knipling. In your
testimony, you state that one area of research focus has been
on determining whether pesticides are associated with CCD and
that you continue to analyze bee samples for their pesticide
exposure. Can you give the Committee a sense of the universe of
these samples under consideration and how many of these samples
have been examined to date?
Dr. Knipling. Certainly, sample analysis is very critical
to support of all of the efforts you have heard about and in
fact much of the progress and our understanding of the
directions that we need to take are based upon those sample
analyses. There have been a considerable number of samples
tested at considerable expense. They are expensive. I don't
know the precise number--we could provide that for the record--
but I think it is on the order of 4,000 to 5,000 samples and
over $100,000 has been spent from various sources and from
various projects. There are probably about that many remaining
samples and these samples are bee samples, pollen samples, and
wax samples. About \2/3\ of the analyses that are required are
for pathogens, the various pathogens we have heard about, and
perhaps about \1/3\ for pesticides. Certainly the additional
resources that we now have and will be forthcoming will allow
us to move forward on this.
We do know, however, that based on the samples that have
already been analyzed, they have given us a very good sense of
direction and helped us to establish and define hypothesis-
driven research. Certainly, the priorities for sample analyses
will be given to those samples coming from those research
projects, as opposed to samples that have come from various
sources unrelated to research projects. But we are well on
track of this issue and we have the increasing resources to
address the problem.
The Chairman. I would like to follow up on that. I
understand from your testimony that these samples are being
examined by AMS for pesticide residues. Can you describe the
mechanism and/or the relationship between ARS and AMS in
conducting the analysis of these samples? It has been reported
to the Committee and it comes up in witness testimony today
that samples are not being examined on a timely basis. You
mentioned that half of them have not been examined yet. And I
understand that AMS involvement in this analysis is on a fee-
for-service basis. You just heard from Ms. Frazier that it is
very expensive and is using a great deal of their resources.
Can you discuss this in some great detail?
Dr. Knipling. Yes. The Agricultural Marketing Service
facility in North Carolina operates a pesticide testing
capability on a user-fee basis. That capability has been in
existence for some time unrelated to this issue. AMS is
responsible for the so-called pesticide data inventory for
agricultural samples which they do on a user-fee basis. They do
not have a mission responsibility with respect to this honey
bee issue. The testing they have done has been based upon the
resources that have been provided to them from the researchers,
both the ARS researchers and the university researchers. There
has been support from some of the other state-level
organizations as well. The tests are expensive, depending on
whether it is bees, pollen or wax, perhaps up to $200 per
sample, and as the researchers can pay for those samples, they
will be tested. With the new additional resources, we see that
considerable additional progress will be made in that area.
The Chairman. Dr. Knipling, the ARS CCD work plan
coordinates the Federal strategy in response to this problem.
In the March 2007 hearing, we heard from a number of witnesses
who stress the need for increased data collection and accurate
annual surveys of bee colonies and bee health. Can you describe
for the Committee the activities that USDA has undertaken to
increase the data associated with an accurate assessment of
pollinator health? Your testimony seems to indicate that action
on a national bee health survey is sometime in the future. Is
USDA solely at the mercy of appropriators in paying these
resources to conduct these surveys, and is there any other
means that we can expedite this critical aspect of what we need
to have happen in order to get to the bottom of this?
Dr. Knipling. The data we have to date, and some of the
loss numbers I quoted earlier in my testimony, are based upon
surveys that have been conducted by some of the ARS researchers
in cooperation with the Apiary Inspectors of America. Those are
the state department of agriculture-level organizations. And we
are using research dollars to do this and they are using state-
level resources as well. APHIS is planning, as indicated and as
authorized in the new farm bill, to conduct a more systematic
national survey of honey bee health and pests, and that is in
process at this point. The planning for that survey, I
understand, is in process.
The Chairman. When can we expect the results from that
survey?
Dr. Knipling. The planning, of course, is just being
initiated, and then I imagine it would take months, perhaps a
full season, to get the additional data. But this is, as you
said at the outset, a very difficult and complex issue and we
are continuing to address all avenues as resources permit.
The Chairman. One of the things that I am wanting to
discuss with you today, certainly we all realize that this is a
big problem, and I am not in any way holding this hearing in an
effort to beat you all up, but we have to find out and we have
to hear from you very directly what are the necessary resources
needed to be brought to bear on this problem in order to find
out the information that we need to get to the bottom of this
question. I am a little concerned that we are a year from the
last hearing and we still don't know all of the requests that
are needed to get to answers, and that is something that is of
grave concern to me. Do you have a response that you would like
to share?
Dr. Knipling. I would just acknowledge that we are very
conscious of the concern and we are addressing it as vigorously
as we can with the resources available to us.
The Chairman. That is my point, sir. We need to know if
there are additional resources that need to be brought to bear.
That is something that this Committee needs to be aware of, and
we just heard from the appropriators today what the level of
resources that they have allocated. Now, you have friends on
this Committee who want to get to the bottom of this question.
If you don't tell us what we need to do, then we can't be your
advocates in making sure that the appropriators provide those
dollars. Now, either the President hasn't requested enough
dollars or we have not provided them, but one way or another,
we can't let this problem go on for lack of funding. So I just
reiterate my request that you need to tell us what the
impediments are so that we can get to the bottom of this.
Dr. Knipling. Well, we will certainly provide additional
information for the record, and the new resources that were
requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2009 budget and, as
you acknowledged earlier, the House Subcommittee action will
help us move in that direction.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Delaplane, both you and Dr. Knipling have raised the
role of the Israeli acute paralysis virus as a marker for CCD.
Your proposal has an IAPV component. What kind of research is
needed to explore the possibility of a causal link? How long
does research of this nature take? And Dr. Knipling, you are
welcome to weigh in on this as well as Dr. Delaplane, if you
could just comment on the resources issue if you see fit.
Mr. Delaplane. The situation with IAPV, as well as any of
the disorders, to rigorously assign cause and effect would have
to go through a step called Cox postulates which is a standard
epidemiological method of trying to reproduce symptoms when the
pathogen is artificially inserted into the host, let the
pathogen reproduce in the host and then reinfect another
generation of the host. This is the most rigorous way to pin
down cause and effect, and the studies that we are proposing--
which, I should say, will be led primarily by Dr. Diana Cox
Foster at Penn State--involve this type of design work.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Frazier, you state in your written testimony that there
has been little effort or investment in finding biologically
based controls for bee parasites. Can you expand on your
statement and your call for significant new resources as we
were just discussing with regard to biological-based materials?
Ms. Frazier. Sure, and I don't want to say that there have
been no resources or no effort. Certainly there has been by the
USDA and by researchers as well, university researchers as
well, but I think you have to understand that the bee research
community unfortunately is quite small. So, the number of us
trying to address this problem along with the resources that we
have had to tackle this huge problem of Varroa mites, and
particularly trying to find biological alternatives to its
control, has been very minimal compared to the size of the
problem. If you are asking me what would it take, that is a
difficult question. But certainly what we need is more people,
more manpower to address this problem of alternatives, and I
think one of the ways to do that is through critical issues
funding through USDA CSREES to develop a critical issues
project that would be devoted specifically to Varroa mite
control alternatives. And I think that the research community
as a whole, like the group that came together to design the
CAP, could do the same for an effort made specifically to
finding alternative controls for Varroa mites.
The Chairman. I have taken significant liberty about going
over my time so far but I am going to take that liberty one
more time. Ms. Frazier, you also advocate in your testimony the
need for reduction in cost of the pesticide analysis service
provided by USDA and AMS, which we discussed. You said in your
testimony 108 pollen samples were analyzed. Do you know how
many samples are waiting for analysis?
Ms. Frazier. Well, there are several different efforts that
are ongoing. Some are just at Penn State. Some are
collaborations between Penn State and USDA. Some are including
the Department of Agriculture in Pennsylvania and Florida. Our
best recollection is that there are about 2,000 samples, our
best estimate is that there are about 2,000 samples that need
to be analyzed, which would be a cost of well over $200,000.
Again, the idea of trying to reduce that cost would be very
significant to our research effort.
The Chairman. It seems like a significant problem. I just
want to be sure, are those samples waiting solely due to the
lack of funds?
Ms. Frazier. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Neugebauer had to go to a classified briefing that he
was compelled to attend and has been excused from the hearing.
In his place, Mr. Latta from Ohio has taken over the chores of
Ranking Member here and we will now allow him to ask questions.
Welcome, Mr. Latta, and please proceed with your questions.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that. I also would like to thank you for this hearing. Where I
come from in northwest Ohio, this is a big issue, and I know
firsthand from when my cousin had--I want to use the word
``had''--bees, and I would help him on many occasions when we
would bring the honey in to get it extracted. I know of many,
many cases across our area where we have lost bee hives and
also in my old Senate district along Lake Erie, some of the
people I used to represent had 10,000 apple trees and it is
very important up there along with apples and peaches and
everything else to make sure that these hives remain active and
we can get this problem solved.
Dr. Knipling, if I could ask a couple questions, the first
being, is there any collaboration between Canada, the United
States and Mexico to establish pollinator monitoring projects
for all of North America?
Dr. Knipling. I am not aware of any specific collaboration
of the type we have been talking about this morning. Certainly
we do have collaborations generically with the research
organizations in those countries, the national research
organizations as well as many of the universities, but I could
provide some additional information for the record.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Also, does the USDA regulate the
interstate movement of honey bees and honey bee pests?
Dr. Knipling. It is my understanding that there are no such
regulations except perhaps in the case of Hawaii, which does
not have the Varroa mite on all of its islands, but again, I
would seek some assistance from our APHIS partners and USDA and
provide that information. They would have the responsibilities
for those quarantine-type activities.
Mr. Latta. Another question pretty much along the same
lines is on the importation of honey bees into the United
States and how do we justify allowing these importations?
Dr. Knipling. Once again, that would be a question I would
seek input from APHIS on. Moving the honey bees is quite
common. Other countries do provide breeding stock for the
commercial bee industry. Also, sources of genetic resistance
for our research efforts are important. The honey bee we have
now was introduced from Europe many years ago, so we are very
highly dependent in the United States on germ plasm resources
from other countries under proper regulation and insurance that
they are not carrying pests. But once again, I could provide
information on the regulations in place regarding imports from
other countries.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Now I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Etheridge,
Mr. Bobby Etheridge from North Carolina, and I just want to
congratulate him on the work that he did with regard to the
farm bill and getting it to goal, and the work he continues to
do on the energy front through the Agriculture Committee. The
Agriculture Committee is responsible for commodity trading and
so we have a significant role in dealing with this current oil
crisis, and Mr. Etheridge is a leader in making sure that the
American people aren't shortchanged. So Mr. Etheridge, I
recognize you and thank you for your work.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you
for calling this hearing and let me say to our folks who are
testifying and others who may follow, if you see me slip out,
we are going to have a bill on the floor today, so I may be
back and forth over there speaking. But let me thank you for
being here.
My State of North Carolina has sort of changed its crop mix
and we are putting a lot more fruits and vegetables out so this
is an issue of importance to the people in North Carolina. I
was telling the Chairman a little earlier, most of us who grew
up on a farm, as I did, and just had a few fruits and
vegetables, didn't think about it or realize that honey bees
were really all that important. We thought they were a nuisance
from time to time, especially if you got out in your garden and
one of them stung you. But today we have a much greater
appreciation as we have larger and larger fields where we
produce a lot of fruits and vegetables that supply the world.
One of the common observations that I picked up in this hearing
is that we don't really know what is causing CCD, or at least
we are not certain as to any one thing, and I guess since this
problem has arisen relatively recently, is it possible there
was some type of similar problem that we experienced back in
the 1980s? As you remember, in the 1980s we had a mite problem.
It took a while. We figured it out. And my question is, is it
similar to that, or in your opinion, what can be done to
maximize--I know we are working on it but it seems to me we
ought to be able to maximize our Federal support at our
university-based research to really focus on this problem. I
know we took some action in the farm bill, as the Chairman
indicated earlier, but it seems to me that that is where we can
get the quickest return and the biggest bang for the buck to
get this fixed. Whoever would like to answer, or all three of
you.
Dr. Knipling. I will start. As has been pointed out, the
honey bee science community is actually very small relative to
other disciplines. We have at ARS approximately 15 scientists
scattered among four different laboratories and university
depth is often much more shallow than that------
Mr. Etheridge. Do we know how many------
Dr. Knipling.--one or two persons.
Mr. Etheridge. Do we know how many universities have some
expertise?
Dr. Knipling. Perhaps my colleagues could help me on that.
No, I don't know offhand. But let me just say that these new
resources that we have available will help us bring in other
disciplines, maybe not honey bee scientists but
microbiologists, genomic scientists and so forth. So, we see a
great opportunity to bring more expertise to this problem, and
sometimes those outsiders have some insights and abilities to
suggest some promising areas that we may have overlooked.
Dr. Delaplane. I might add that we have seen in this
session a couple good examples, more industry involvement, some
real innovative things with Haagen-Dazs and Burt's Bees, for
instance, and these types of linkages should only be encouraged
and increased. Specific areas like the Critical Issues
Initiative with CSREES is a logical place to pump more dollars
into this, and the CAP program of which I have written a
proposal is also a good model for targeted issues like bee
decline.
Ms. Frazier. Just in answer to your question about the
number of researchers at universities, I don't know the exact
number, but over the last few years researchers and extension
specialists focused on bee or apiculture has dramatically
declined. It is a small industry and unfortunately resources
and personnel have just not gone in that direction. I do
totally agree that what we also need is not necessarily
researchers who are trained, for instance, in apiculture, but
we need toxicologists and pathologists and physiologists. We
need to bring that kind of expertise to bear on this problem.
It is a very big and a very complex problem and unfortunately,
for better or worse, researchers go where the funding is. So if
we had significant resources, I think we would get that kind of
expertise, researchers working on this kind of problem.
Mr. Etheridge. I thank you. I think that is important.
Dr. Delaplane, you mentioned the importance of increasing
the funding and all of you touched on that to combat the CCD
and I agree that is important. I think we all agree on that
one. But tell me what are universities studying to see what
kind of things they are doing, asking individual landowners how
they can help, what kind of information they have. It seems to
me, as has just been stated, they have a lot of information. I
wonder if we are really getting that information then to use
because it seems to me the person who is at the end of that
food chain, so to speak, would have pretty good information as
to be able to assist the researchers.
Dr. Delaplane. We do, and we are certainly not starting at
ground zero. Bee decline has been an interest for literally
decades, and some aspects of this can be tracked back to the
1940s even with declining bee numbers. So this in some sense is
not new so we do have a large information base to capitalize on
with the current crisis. I guess that raises a question, what
is the current crisis, and I think it is an acute expression of
trends that we are already familiar with. We have been seeing
declining bees and it is getting worse. So that is what is new.
So I make that point just to emphasize that several university
programs have been working on issues related to this. One thing
that is really exciting about the present situation is the
ability to coordinate all of this, and to sort of get all on
one page and to avoid redundancies, and to use our resources
more effectively, and I see that happening with some of these
funding opportunities that we are seeing now.
Mr. Etheridge. Ms. Frazier, let me ask you, and others may
want to comment on this because it seems when something appears
relatively quickly and we don't have a quick answer, I really
wonder, is there any indication that this is regional, in
regional parts of the country?
Ms. Frazier. No.
Mr. Etheridge. Could it be affected by drought or change in
weather patterns? Have you got enough research to indicate
whether that could be an impact? I know in our part of the
country we may be starting the third year of a drought, which--
----
Ms. Frazier. It certainly would be helpful if that was the
case but unfortunately, it is not the case. This is very much
nationwide. If you had to kind of characterize it in any one
way, I would say unfortunately it does seem to be a problem
mainly in our large commercial migratory operations. That is
CCD. Overall pollinator decline, though, is across the board in
terms of all beekeepers whether they be small, migratory or
not. We have been seeing this decline of pollinators, as Keith
just described, for years. But CCD does seem to be particularly
a problem among our large commercial migratory beekeepers.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Just a follow-up on that last question. Does it continue to
seem to be a worldwide problem or is there some improvement in
other parts of the world?
Ms. Frazier. Pollinator decline is most certainly a
worldwide problem. Whether or not it is CCD is a hard thing to
discern at this point. In many parts of the world, they don't
do a very good job at actually--I mean, certainly in Europe,
they have a very good handle on declines, numbers of bees,
numbers of bees that are dying for whatever reasons, but in
many parts of the world like South America and Africa and so
forth, this information is not collected and not documented. In
Europe, certainly for a number of different reasons, they have
had significant declines and not the least of which they
blame--certainly their declines in the most recent one, for
instance, in Germany--on pesticides.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Knipling, I want to thank this panel in general for
their testimony and thank you, sir, specifically but also I am
going to be wanting to follow up, this Committee is going to
want to follow up with USDA and your agency with regard to
adequate funding levels and that question. We are not going to
let this just die with this hearing closing today. So I would
encourage you to be in contact with my staff on the Committee
because we are going to have a lot of further questions and
follow-up, and I don't want this to just sort of languish until
next year.
Dr. Knipling. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and we will work with you
and your staff and provide the requested information.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. With that, I would like
to dismiss this panel, thank you for your testimony, and call
up our second panel. As you are coming forward, I would just
like to mention that it is anticipated that we are going to
have a series of votes coming up. We could have up to nine
votes, which would take a significant amount of time if in fact
they are called. So we are going to have to try and move the
hearing along as best we can. With the next panel coming
forward, I would ask you to submit your written testimony and
please summarize and give us your best summation, in as brief a
fashion as possible, the salient points that you want to convey
in live testimony to the Committee. So with that, I will call
and introduce the next panel.
The staff has actually come up with a good suggestion, and
what I would like to do is combine both panels two and three,
so if we can all just shift over a bit, bring up some chairs.
The staff is going to try and rearrange the name placards, and
we will try and make one large panel of the next witnesses who
are planning to testify. So staff, if you can take the other
name placards down. Sorry for this rearranging, but this often
happens in Congress. I have noted that you are not sitting in
order, which I can't blame you for after all the moving around.
I will call you up individually in the correct order that we
had laid you out on the panel, because there is some rhyme and
reason to why we have done it this way. I would like to begin
by introducing our witnesses. First of all, I will introduce
you all and then I will introduce you one by one.
We have with us today Mr. Steve Godlin, beekeeper from
Visalia, California. Welcome. We have Dr. David Mendes, Vice
President of the American Beekeeping Federation from North Fort
Myers, Florida. We have Mr. Robert Edwards, producer from
Whitakers, North Carolina, who is a constituent of Mr.
Etheridge's and I believe he will want to introduce you when he
comes back. We have Mr. Edward Flanagan, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Jasper Wyman and Sons, Millbridge, Maine.
We have with us as well Ms. Katty Pien, Brand Director, Haagen-
Dazs Ice Cream, Oakland, California. Welcome very much. We have
Mr. John Replogle, President and CEO of Burt's Bees, Durham,
North Carolina. Welcome. And Ms. Laurie Davies Adams, Executive
Director of the Pollinator Partnership in San Francisco,
California. Welcome to you all.
Mr. Etheridge, we have combined panels two and three so
that we can hopefully expedite. We have asked our witnesses to
summarize their testimony, to submit their written testimony
and just give us their salient points in their oral testimony.
We will now start out with Steve Godlin, beekeeper from
Visalia. Steven, welcome. Thank you very much for being here
with us today and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GODLIN, BEEKEEPER, S.P. GODLIN APIARIES,
VISALIA, CA
Mr. Godlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honorable Committee.
My name is Steve Godlin. I am a commercial beekeeper from
Tulare County in California's Central Valley. I am here today
to give you an update on the condition of our industry.
Before I do, I would like to say my old mentor, Hood
Littlefield, was here 40 years ago and he is the guy that got
me in business, and he always said Steve, take care of your
bees and the bees will take care of you, and he was a great man
and I hope to honor him here today.
The Chairman. It sounds like great advice, sir.
Mr. Godlin. Our bees look good today. We have over 5,000
hives alive and well, and this is about where we were last year
at this time. Things started to unravel in the middle of July.
By the time October mercifully arrived, we were down to 2,500
hives and not the strongest hives at that. But like all good
farmers, we took what money we made and dumped it back into the
bees. We took a 50 percent hit and survived because we are
fortunate to have our operation based in the best place in the
world for bees, the heart of the almond industry. In case you
haven't heard, cotton is no longer king in San Joaquin.
Currently there are 660,000 acres producing and would be more
if not for the water crisis in our state. This requires about
1.3 million hives of bees. The number of managed hives in
California has dropped despite beekeepers' efforts to meet
growers' demand. Bees are now being shipped into California
from everywhere in the United States. Even Australia is trying
to get in the game.
We have created the biggest experiment ever performed on
the honey bee. Take bees from all over the continent and stick
them in the valley to mingle and forage together with mites and
diseases, an apparent list of viruses as long as your arm and
see what happens. Or maybe this isn't what is wrong. Haven't we
heard bees around the world are having a problem and beekeepers
here in the United States who do not ship bees to California
are losing hives as well.
We began to notice these losses in recent years. We have
had rough years from time to time with higher than usual
losses, but nothing has been on the levels we are facing right
now, and this is why there has been all this attention on us.
People now realize that that $15 billion worth of food that
requires pollination to exist is a lot of pretty delicious
stuff.
We appreciate this attention and have been encouraged by
the legislative actions. At home, the bee lab at UC Davis is up
and running again thanks to generous contributions by
beekeepers, almond growers and companies like Haagen-Dazs Ice
Cream, who donated $250,000 to honey bee research and is
running a priceless ``Save the Bee'' ad campaign. We couldn't
buy this.
Researchers across the country have been collaborating on
projects in an attempt to find answers. Beekeepers themselves
have put aside their differences and are working with the
scientific and governmental communities, as well as each other,
on an unprecedented level. I know the fact that our two
national organizations had a shared conference this year speaks
volumes to the importance of this issue.
I am here today to ask that you continue to fund honey bee
research. There are some very important projects just getting
up and started and we really haven't time to waste. I hope we
are getting there. The middle of July is looming and I am more
than a little worried. We are providing our bees all the
supplemental nutrition and fresh queens we can. We are treating
for Nosema ceranae aggressively and hope for a better fall than
this last one.
Of critical importance is bee pasture. Like any other
animals, bees need forage. Recently there has been a lot of
discussion about bee farms where forage is planted specifically
for bees. CRP land in the Midwest is a perfect example of this
but, as you all know, this is going away fast. Feedlot
beekeeping is not working. I have seen areas in California
where literally thousands of hives are gathered in a few square
miles with disastrous results. It is a very unnatural situation
for the bees when all they have to feed on is each other.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about
pesticides. Thirty to 40 percent of our honey and pollen
sources are wild from the Sierras, the Mojave Desert and the
coast range, all based on rainfall. All the rest comes from
irrigated crops where we are guests, and a good guest doesn't
complain about the smell on his food while he is eating at his
host's table. It has been a very delicate task to make what
little headway we have, thanks in part to public awareness and
everyone's desire for a cleaner world. All farmers bear a
tremendous burden to produce food safely and still make a
profit.
I am proud to be a part of the greatest agricultural
powerhouse in the world. I know that the honey bee industry is
an odd, hard-to-fit gear in this machine and the average person
needs to understand that food doesn't magically appear at our
grocery stores who, by the way, need to step up and help with
this education.
Thank you for your time. I am a producer. I believe hard
work is a cure for everything and I know we all need to work
smarter, not harder. Please be smart. Thank you and good luck
to us all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Godlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Godlin, Beekeeper, S.P. Godlin Apiaries,
Visalia, CA
Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Steve Godlin; I am a commercial beekeeper from Tulare
County in the middle of California's central valley by the western
foothills of the Sierra Nevada. I am here today to give an update on
the condition of the honey bee industry right now.
Our bees look good. We have over 5,000 hives alive and well in the
field today. We are coming off a surprisingly good desert buckwheat
honeyflow considering the dry spring we had. I am very encouraged by
the honey prices and the pollination season ahead in 2009.
This is about where we were last year at this time. Things started
to unravel in the middle of July. By the time October mercifully
arrived we were down to 2,500 hives, and not the strongest hives at
that. But like all good farmers, we took what money we made and dumped
it back into bees.
We traveled to South Dakota and bought $100,000 worth of bees from
another beekeeper and put them into our empty equipment and shipped
three semi loads of bees across the country. We arranged to buy another
semi load of bees from a man in Minnesota. We arranged to lease another
5,000 hives from beekeepers in North and South Dakota, Minnesota and
Texas. We were up and running.
We took a fifty percent hit and survived because we are fortunate
to have our operation based in the best place in the world for making
money with bees, the heart of the almond industry. In case you haven't
heard, cotton is no longer king in the San Joaquin. Almond acreage is
at an all time high and is an economic juggernaut for California
agriculture.
Currently there are 660,000 acres producing and would be more if
not for the water crisis in our state. This requires about 1,300,000
hives of bees to pollinate them. The number of managed hives in
California has dropped to around 400,000 hives despite beekeepers'
efforts to meet growers' demands. Bees are now being shipped into
California from everywhere in the U.S.; even Australia is trying to get
in the game. Now I have to go to national bee conventions and defend my
state as beekeepers from New York or Montana disparage us and call us a
gutter for bees.
We have created the biggest experiment ever performed on the honey
bee. Take bees from all over the continent and stick them in the valley
to mingle and forage together with mites and diseases and apparently a
list of viruses as long as your arm and see what happens. Or maybe this
isn't what is wrong--haven't we been hearing that bees around the world
are having a problem? And beekeepers here in the U.S., who do not ship
bees to California are losing hives as well.
We began to notice these losses in recent years. We have had rough
years from time to time with higher than usual losses, and in history
there have been a few epidemics in the bee world. But nothing has been
on the levels we are facing now. This is why there has been all this
attention on us. People now realize that the $15 billion dollars worth
of food that requires pollination to exist is a lot of pretty delicious
stuff.
We appreciate this attention and have been encouraged by the
legislations actions. At home, the Bee Lab at U.C. Davis is up and
running again thanks to generous contributions by beekeepers, almond
growers, and companies like Haagen-Daz Ice Cream who donated $250,000
to honey bee research and is running a priceless ``save the bee'' ad
campaign.
Researchers across the country have been collaborating on projects
in an attempt to find answers. Beekeepers themselves have put aside
their differences and are working with the scientific and governmental
communities as well as each other on an unprecedented level. I know the
fact that our two national organizations had a shared conference this
year speaks volumes to the importance of this issue.
I am here today to ask that you would vote to continue helping to
fund honey bee research. There are some very important projects just
getting up and started, and we really haven't time to waste, or money.
We need results. We need a united effort by all and shared knowledge
from a variety of fields.
I hope we are getting there; the middle of July is looming and I am
more than a little worried. We are providing our bees all the
supplemental nutrition and fresh queens we can. We are treating for
Nosema ceranae aggressively and hope for a better fall than this last
one.
Beekeeping is more challenging now than it has ever been and you
dare not walk very far away from them if you expect them to survive. My
old mentor always told me to ``take care of the bees and they will take
care of you.'' Well, Mr. Littlefield, I wish I knew what to do.
Of critical importance is bee pasture. Like any other animals, bees
need forage. No farmer grows crops just for bees; they grow crops to
make money. Recently there has been a lot of discussion about bee farms
where forage is planted specifically for bees. CRP land in the Midwest
is a perfect example of this, but as you all know this is going away
fast with the pressure to grow more corn and soybeans. Feedlot
beekeeping is not working. I have seen areas in California where
literally thousands of hives are gathered in a few square miles with
disastrous results. It is a very unnatural situation for the bees when
all they have to feed on is each other.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about pesticides.
Thirty to forty percent of our honey and pollen sources are wild such
as the Sierras, the Mojave and the coast range, all based on rainfall.
All the rest comes from irrigated crops where we are guests, and a good
guest doesn't complain about the smell on his food while he is eating
at his host's table. It has been a very delicate task to make what
little headway we have, and I would hope that progress is being made,
thanks in part to public awareness and everyone's desire for a cleaner
world. All farmers bear a tremendous responsibility and burden to
produce food that is safe and still make a profit.
I am proud to be a part of the greatest agricultural powerhouse in
the world and I know that the honey bee industry is a little, odd,
hard-to-fit gear in the machine. We need help right now, and we need
the average person to understand that food doesn't magically appear at
our grocery stores, which, by the way, need to step up and help with
this education.
Thank you for your time. I am a producer. I believe that hard work
is the cure for everything, but I know we all need to work smarter not
harder, please be smart.
Thank you and good luck to us all.
Steve Godlin,
S.P. Godlin Apiaries.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Godlin. I will tell you that
your testimony rings true to me. It is certainly the last part
that you talked about, hard work. That was my daddy's answer to
everything as well. Maybe because we come from the same part of
the country, we have the same views on that.
I have just been informed that we are going to have a
series of three votes between 11:30 and 11:45. We will continue
taking testimony through that period of time. We will have to
recess for those three votes and then I will come back and we
will probably engage in questions at that time.
Next up, I would like to call Mr. David Mendes, Vice
President of the American Beekeeping Federation from North Fort
Myers, Florida. Welcome, sir. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MENDES, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BEEKEEPING
FEDERATION, INC., NORTH FORT MYERS, FL
Mr. Mendes. Chairman Cardoza and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you and
other Members of the Subcommittee who have continued to
demonstrate your concern about honey bee Colony Collapse
Disorder, or CCD. My name is David Mendes. I am representing
the American Beekeeping Federation, a national beekeepers'
association of about 1,100 members in all 50 states. I hope to
speak for this organization and also to share with you my own
personal observations as a beekeeper in the field. I will try
to keep my comments brief.
I would like to be able to tell you that over the last 18
months we have figured out the cause of CCD, but that would not
be an accurate statement. What I can tell you is that many
beekeepers have a pretty good idea of what is hurting their
bees. I hope to share with you my opinions on the problem and
what we need to do about it. I need to emphasize the
frustration and in many cases desperation felt by beekeepers
that have watched large numbers of their bees die and felt
helpless to do anything about it. Beekeepers are not very good
at asking for help. We tend to be an independent and self-
reliant bunch. But what is happening now is different than
anything that we have seen before, and I am convinced that we
will not solve this problem without a significant research
effort.
So far there has been tremendous media coverage of CCD and
a lot of talk about efforts to solve this problem, but actual
research money spent in the field has been very little. I would
encourage you to add up the dollars invested so far. You would
be amazed to know how little money has been made available for
such a big problem.
It is my opinion that CCD is more than just a beekeeping
problem. There is something in the environment that is making
our bees sick. It is generally accepted that honey bees can be
used as indicators of environmental quality. The Defense
Department has funded projects to use honey bees to locate land
mines and biological agents that may be used in chemical
warfare. I can direct you to people that are doing this
research. It is amazing that a honey bee can detect such low
levels of toxins even in the parts per billion range.
I participated in a project coordinated through Penn State
to collect samples of bees, comb, pollen and honey from my
hives from March 2007 to January 2008. Two other East Coast
beekeepers were also involved. For each of us, 18 to 24 hives
were selected and marked. The goal was to take samples out of
each hive each time they were moved to a new location. In my
case, hives were sampled seven times, twice in Florida in the
spring, once in Maine on blueberry pollination, once in
Massachusetts on cranberry pollination, and three more times in
Florida through the fall and winter.
Samples were collected for analysis with the intent that
some conclusions could be drawn to compare the conditions in
the hive that result in survival or death of these hives.
Varroa mite levels and Nosema spore counts were to be examined
to either confirm or deny their role in hive mortality. One of
the most interesting aspects of this study is the ability to do
pollen analysis for pesticide, fungicide and herbicide levels
inside the hive. Unfortunately, this type of testing is costly
and only a few of the samples collected have been analyzed so
far. The balance are in storage awaiting funding.
The information from the samples that have been run so far
is absolutely amazing and certainly the type of data that
beekeepers need to direct where they can safely keep their
bees. My first samples from Florida citrus showed levels of
imidacloprid and aldicarb inside the pollen that are much
higher than expected. The samples taken while my bees were in
Massachusetts for cranberries show levels of fungicide in the
pollen as high as 7,000 parts per billion. It may be
interesting for you to know that of the 18 hives that began
this study in March 2007, only 4 of these hives were still
alive 10 months later. Of these four hives, only one was of
sufficient strength to pollinate almonds in California in
February. My calculations show this to be a 95 percent loss on
these test hives in 10 months.
I am here this morning to appeal to you that a first step
in figuring out CCD is to develop a comprehensive program to
look inside bee hives all across the nation to find out what
types of substances our bees are exposed to. Beekeepers
understand that something is making our bees sick, but in order
to be taken seriously by regulatory officials who control the
use of agricultural products, we need data to back up our
opinions.
I personally contacted the pesticide regulatory department
in Florida to discuss the levels of imidacloprid and aldicarb
that my bees were exposed to in Florida citrus, and was
politely told that nothing could be done to protect my bees
without proper data collection to show that these products were
performing differently than show in their original EPA
certification. In effect, I was educated on how the regulatory
system works. It is data and not opinion that is needed. This
makes sense to me and that is why we need to get to work
collecting this data.
I know that monitoring beehives and lab analysis of samples
is expensive. The work that has been done so far has been paid
for by the industry through our organizations and the National
Honey Board with some supplemental funding by ARS. The
institutions doing the CCD work, both government and
universities, have had to divert money from other projects to
cover these costs. Companies such as Haagen-Dazs and Burt's
Bees have been a tremendous help in providing some funding for
some of this work.
Who should be shouldering this cost? Right now the
beekeepers are getting hit with all the expense in the form of
dead beehives. It would likely be appropriate for the
manufacturers of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to share
in the cost of monitoring the distribution of their products in
the environment. This should be included as a normal cost of
selling ag chemicals. Honey bees could be a valuable tool to
monitor how these products travel in the plants, water and soil
that they are applied to.
I am sure that most of the people at this hearing are aware
of recent actions in Germany to restrict the use of many
systemic pesticides. This follows regulatory actions originally
implemented in France to limit the use of these products until
they can be clearly proven to be safe to honey bees and other
beneficial insects. Our regulatory system in the United States
is different than in Europe and it may require more data
collection to challenge products that have already received EPA
approval. I say that the effort to collect the data that either
proves or disproves the safety of these products needs to be
required now.
Much of the frustration felt by beekeepers is directed at
the lack of any concrete actions to address the causes of CCD.
A comprehensive program to sample hives all over the country
would be a visible first step to get the ball rolling. If a
person is sick, the first thing a doctor does is take their
vital signs and run lab tests. This is the place to begin with
CCD. The answers to this problem will only be discovered if we
take the time to look inside our hives.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning.
I would be glad to offer much more detail or answer questions
about any of our field observations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mendes follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Mendes, Vice President, American Beekeeping
Federation, Inc., North Fort Myers, FL
Chairman Cardoza and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to address you and the other members
of the Subcommittee who have continued to demonstrate your concern
about honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). My name is David
Mendes. I am representing the American Beekeeping Federation, a
national beekeepers association of about 1,100 members in all 50
states. I hope to speak for this organization and also to share with
you my own personal observations as a beekeeper in the field. I will
try to keep my comments brief and will be happy to answer any questions
that you or the Subcommittee may have.
I started keeping bees when I was in the seventh grade. By the time
I was in high school, I was in the bee business with over 300 hives.
Today I operate 7,000+ hives from a base in Florida, with annual
migration up the East Coast to pollinate blueberries in Maine and
cranberries in Massachusetts. This past February I sent 15 tractor-
trailer loads of bees to California to pollinate almonds.
My experience with CCD started with a phone call from my good
friend Dave Hackenberg in November 2006. I was attending the California
State Beekeepers convention when Dave told me that something was very
wrong with his bees. I flew back to Florida a few days later and met
with Dave to look at the bees he was having problems with. Out of a
load of over 400 hives he had brought to Florida from Pennsylvania in
October, less than 40 were still alive a few weeks later. Hackenberg
went on to discover that many of his other hives were also dying and by
the end of the year almost 70% of his hives were dead. This episode was
the opening chapter in the story of Colony Collapse Disorder. During
that winter of 2006-2007 many other beekeepers experienced excessive
hive mortality resulting in over 30% hive loss nationwide. The winter
of 2007-2008 has been worse with some reports of over 37% loss
nationwide.
I would like to be able to tell you that over the last 18 months we
have figured out the cause of CCD, but that would not be an accurate
statement. What I can tell you is that many beekeepers have a pretty
good idea of what is hurting their bees. I hope to share with you my
opinions on the problem and what we need to do about it. I need to
emphasize the frustration and in many cases desperation felt by
beekeepers that have watched large numbers of their bees die and felt
helpless to do anything about it. Beekeepers are not very good at
asking for help. We tend to be an independent and self-reliant bunch.
But what is happening now is different than anything that we have seen
before, and I am convinced that we will not solve this problem without
a significant research effort. So far, there has been tremendous media
coverage of CCD and a lot of talk about efforts to ``solve'' this
problem, but actual research money spent in the field has been very
little. I would encourage you to add up the dollars invested so far.
You would be amazed to know how little money has been made available
for such a ``big'' problem.
It is my opinion that CCD is more than just a beekeeping problem.
There is something in the environment that is making our bees ``sick.''
It is generally accepted that honey bees can be used as indicators of
environmental quality. The Defense Department has funded projects to
use honey bees to locate land mines and biological agents that may be
used in chemical warfare. I can direct you to people that are doing
this research. It is amazing that a honey bee can detect such low
levels of toxins even in the parts per billion range.
I participated in a project coordinated by Dennis VanEngelsdorp
from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to collect samples of
bees, comb, pollen, and honey from my hives from March 2007 to January
2008. The purpose of this study was to monitor as many variables as
possible in a small sample of hives to see if any patterns emerge that
can identify factors causing hive mortality. Two other East Coast
beekeepers were also involved. For each of us 18 to 24 hives were
selected and marked. The goal was to take samples out of each hive each
time they were moved to a new location. Sampling began while the bees
were in Florida citrus groves and followed each beekeeper as they
migrated up to the northern crops they would pollinate. In my case,
hives were sampled 7 times, twice in Florida in the spring of 2007,
once in Maine on blueberry pollination, once in Massachusetts on
cranberry pollination, and three more times in Florida through the
following fall and winter.
Samples were collected for analysis with the intent that some
conclusions could be drawn to compare the conditions in the hive that
result in survival or death of these hives. Varroa mite levels and
Nosema spore counts were to be examined to either confirm or deny their
role in hive mortality. One of the most interesting aspects of this
study to me is the ability to do pollen analysis for pesticide,
fungicide, and herbicide levels inside the hive. Unfortunately this
type of testing is costly and only a few of the samples collected have
been analyzed so far. The balance are in storage awaiting funding for
the analyses.
The information from the samples that have been run is absolutely
amazing and certainly the type of data that beekeepers need to direct
where they can safely keep their bees. My first samples from Florida
citrus showed levels of imidacloprid and aldicarb inside the pollen
that are much higher than expected. The samples taken while my bees
were in Massachusetts cranberries show levels of fungicide in the
pollen as high as 7000 ppb. It may be interesting for you to know that
of the 18 hives that began this study in March 2007, only 4 of these
hives were still alive 10 months later in January 2008. Of these 4
hives only one was of sufficient strength to pollinate almonds in
California in February. My calculations show this to be a 95% loss on
these test hives in ten months.
I am here this morning to appeal to you that a first step in
figuring out CCD is to develop a comprehensive program to look inside
beehives all across the nation to find out what types of substances our
bees are exposed to. Beekeepers understand that something is making our
bees sick, but in order to be taken seriously by regulatory officials
who control the use of agricultural products, we need data to back up
our opinions. I personally contacted the pesticide regulatory
department in Florida to discuss the levels of imidacloprid and
aldicarb that my bees were exposed to in Florida citrus groves and was
told that nothing could be done to protect my bees without proper data
collection to show that these products were performing differently than
shown in their original EPA certification. In effect, I was
``educated'' on how the regulatory system works. It is data and not
opinion that is needed. This makes sense to me and that is why we need
to ``get to work'' collecting this data.
I know that monitoring beehives and lab analysis of samples is
expensive. The work that has been done thus has been paid for by the
industry through our organizations and the National Honey Board, with
some supplemental funding by Agricultural Research Service. The
institutions doing the CCD work, both government and universities, have
had to divert money from other projects to cover these costs.
Who should be shouldering this cost? Right now the beekeepers are
getting hit with all the expense in the form of dead beehives. It would
likely be appropriate for the manufacturers of pesticides, fungicides,
and herbicides share in the cost of monitoring the distribution of
their products in the environment. This should be included as a normal
cost of selling agricultural chemicals. Honey bees could be a valuable
tool to monitor how these products travel in the plants, water and soil
that they are applied to.
I am sure that most of the people at this hearing are aware of
recent actions in Germany to restrict the use of many systemic
pesticides. This follows regulatory actions originally implemented in
France to limit the use of these products until they can be ``clearly
proven'' to be safe to honey bees and other beneficial insects. Our
regulatory system in the United States is different than in Europe, and
it may require more data collection to challenge products that have
already received EPA approval. I say that the effort to collect the
data that either proves or disproves the safety of these products needs
to be required now.
Much of the frustration felt by beekeepers is directed at the lack
of any concrete actions to address the causes of CCD. A comprehensive
program to sample hives all over the country would be a visible first
step to get the ball rolling. If a person is sick, the first thing a
doctor does is take their vital signs and run lab tests. This is the
place to begin with CCD. The answers to this problem will only be
discovered if we take the time to look inside our hives.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I would
be glad to offer much more detail or answer questions about any of our
field observations.
Thank you,
David Mendes.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Next we have Mr. Etheridge's guest witness, so I would like
to ask him to introduce his constituent from North Carolina.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief
because we want to get it in, but Mr. Edwards, glad to have
you.
Mr. Edwards. Thank you.
Mr. Etheridge. He is a large producer of multiple crops,
cucumbers being the one he has great need for bees on, and a
lot of cucumbers and a lot of vegetables are grown in our part
of the state that weren't grown 10, 15 years ago. Welcome. We
look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. EDWARDS, COTTON, CORN,
SOYBEANS, PEANUTS, AND OTHER SPECIALTY CROPS
PRODUCER, HALIFAX, NASH, AND EDGECOMB COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA,
WHITAKERS, NC
Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. Good morning. My
name is Robert Edwards and I am a third-generation farmer from
Whitakers, North Carolina. Along with my brother and father, we
grow over 5,000 acres of cotton, corn, soybeans, peanuts,
tobacco and cucumbers in Halifax, Nash and Edgecomb Counties,
that is located in eastern North Carolina. Our farm is a family
operation and I have grown up working on this land and look
forward to continuing this operation for many years in the
future.
For over 10 years, a vital part of our firm has been the
100 acres of cucumbers that we plant each year. I am sorry to
have to report to this Committee, however, that due to the
severe and sudden rise in the price of fuel, the ongoing and
worsening problem of a lack of labor to harvest, and the recent
and increasing problem of a lack of honey bees needed to
pollinate these crops, we have been forced to reduce our
acreage of cucumbers by 50 percent.
I am not alone in experiencing these problems. Not only do
I grow cucumbers on my farm, I also work for a much larger
cucumber operation, Carolina's Best, managing cucumber
production producing hundreds of acres of cucumbers that supply
the $36.2 million cucumber industry in North Carolina.
I emphasize again the economic pressures that all farmers
are feeling with respect to labor availability and the rising
cost of fuel, and I know that Congress is working to address
these issues, but we are here today to discuss a problem that
is just as harmful as those previously mentioned, that is,
pollinator availability or honey bees. The simple fact is, no
honey bees, no cucumbers. The cucumbers we grow today are
highly pollinator intensive. There is a very short window for
this fruit to be pollinated, which also requires a high number
of bees to perform this task successfully, and I again
emphasize if this pollination does not occur within that window
of opportunity, there will be no cucumbers to harvest.
We have always rented honey bees from beehive operations
located within the State of North Carolina. Over the past 3
years, however, we have seen a notable decrease in the
availability of the hives for rent in North Carolina. The
reason for this is that the hives produced in the southeastern
part of the United States are being shipped all over the nation
due to shortages of bees in other areas, thus increasing the
cost we pay to rent hives. These longer shipping distances have
also increased the cost. Three years ago, I was paying
approximately $45 per hive. Today I am paying $68 for that same
hive, and I don't know what the cost will be tomorrow.
In other states the story is even worse. In California,
there is already concern about a shortage of bees to pollinate
the almond crop. Growers are scrambling to reserve bees, and I
have heard prices as high as $140 per hive.
Honey bees are truly unsung heroes in feeding our nation
and the world. I tell my non-farmer friends that these bees are
out there pollinating more than my cucumbers. They are critical
for the growth of virtually everything in our food chain,
because everything in this chain eats something that has been
pollinated or ate something else that was pollinated by a honey
bee.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a scientist, I am a farmer, and I
know one thing for certain: no bees, no crops. As a farmer who
relies on these bees, I am searching for solutions just like
you. I think in the short term, possible solutions could be to
give these beekeepers access to some of the same programs that
we provide to the farmers. For example, my beekeeper that I use
lost 40 percent of his bees last year. If I lost 40 percent of
a crop without crop insurance, I wouldn't be here today, I
would be probably picking up tin cans on the side of the road.
But Congress is working to fix the H2-A problem to correct our
labor crisis in the specialty crop industry and I am hopeful
that at some point fuel prices will go back down. But Congress
needs to understand that the problem of the lack of bees to
pollinate the very foods we consume every day is a real and
growing problem that needs to be studied, addressed and
corrected. Bees are as important to our crops as the water and
the sunshine.
I would like to thank you for your attention to this
matter. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer
them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert D. Edwards, Cotton, Corn, Soybeans,
Peanuts, and Other Specialty Crops Producer, Halifax, Nash, and
Edgecomb Counties, North Carolina, Whitakers, NC
Good morning, my name is Robert Dowe Edwards, I am a third
generation farmer from Whitakers, North Carolina. Along with my brother
and father, we grow over 5,000 acres of cotton, corn, soybeans,
peanuts, and other specialty crops such as cucumbers in Halifax, Nash,
and Edgecomb Counties in Eastern North Carolina. Our farm is a family
operation, I have grown up working this land, and look forward to
continuing this operation for many years in the future.
For over ten years, a vital and profitable part of our farm, has
been the 100 acres of cucumbers we plant each year. I am sorry to have
to report to this Committee, however, that due to the severe and sudden
rise in the price of fuel, the ongoing and worsening problem of a lack
of labor to harvest these cucumbers, and the recent and increasing
problem of a lack of honey bees needed to pollinate these crops, we
have been forced to reduce our acreage of cucumbers by 50 percent.
I am not alone in experiencing these problems. Not only do I grow
cucumbers on my farm, I also work as a grower for a much larger
cucumber operation, Carolina's Best Farms, managing cucumber production
operations in these counties, producing hundreds of acres of cucumbers
that supply pickling cucumbers for the significant pickling and canning
industry in the State of North Carolina.
I emphasize again the economic pressures that all farmers are
feeling with respect to labor availability and the rising cost of fuel,
and I hope that Congress is working to address these issues. But we are
here today to discuss a problem that is just as harmful as those
previously mentioned: pollinator availability, honeybees. The simple
fact is, no honeybees, no cucumbers.
The hybrid Vlaspick pickle breed that I grow, specially bred and
designed as a heavy fruit set variety designed for five to six pickings
at harvest, is highly labor, irrigation, and time intensive. This breed
is also highly pollinator intensive, there is a short window for this
fruit to be pollinated, which also requires a high number of bees to
perform this successfully. And again I emphasize, if this pollination
does not occur within the window of opportunity, these will be no
cucumbers to harvest.
Our decision to reduce our acreage of cucumber production is as
directly related to the declining availability of honey bees for
pollination of these crops. Our farm and the surrounding cucumber farms
that I work with have until recently always rented honey bees for
pollinators from bee hive operations located within the State of North
Carolina. Over the past three years, however, we have seen a notable
decrease in the availability of these hives for rent. The reason for
this is that the bee hives produced in the Southeastern part of the
United States are being shipped all over the country due to shortages
of bees in other areas, this increases in the cost we pay to rent these
bees. These longer shipping distances have also increased the cost of
the hives. Three years ago I paid $45 per hive, today I am paying $68
to rent that same hive.
In other states the story is even worse. In California, there is
already a concern about a shortage of bees to pollinate the almond
crop, growers are scrambling to reserve bees, and the price their has
risen to $140 per hive.
The lower number of hives for rent has also decreased the time
these bees are available to sit on the field to be pollinated, making
the window for pollination even smaller. This increases my pressure to
increase irrigation to make sure the crop is ready for the time I will
have these bees, and this in turn further increases my fuel costs.
For our purposes, our operation has always used one hive per acre
to ensure adequate pollination. As I mentioned earlier, cucumbers are a
difficult fruit to pollinate, this is a very sticky plant that requires
a high number of bees due to the increased effort that is needed on the
part of the bee. And as I tell my non-farmer friends, these bees are
out there pollinating more than my cucumbers, they are critical for the
growth of virtually everything in our food chain; because everything in
this chain eats something that has been pollinated, or ate something
else that was pollinated by a honey bee.
My great concern is that we are witnessing a serious and
unexplained reduction in the availability of these bees. This sudden
reduction in the number of bees has been explained to me as Colony
Collapse Disorder, but the cause of this is not so clear.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a scientist, I am a farmer, and I know one
thing for certain: no bees, no crops. As a farmer who relies on these
bees I am searching for solutions just like you are. I think in the
short term, possible solutions could be to give these farmers some of
the access to the programs that we provide to the farmers who rely on
them. My bee supplier lost 40 percent of his hive last year, if I lost
40 percent of my crop and did not have crop insurance, I would go
under. Congress should consider making crop insurance and low interest
FSA loans available to these bee keepers, and to increase the amount of
bees, possibly making them eligible for beginning farmer loans.
I did not reduce my acreage of cucumbers because of the cost of
fuel, I was forced to reduce my acreage because I could not ensure that
I would be able to rent enough bees to pollinate my crop. Congress can
work to fix the H-2A problem, to correct our labor crisis in the
specialty crop industry, and I am hopeful that at some point fuel
prices will have to go back down. But Congress needs to understand that
the problem of a lack of bees needed to pollinate the very foods we
consume every day is a real and growing problem that needs to be
studied, addressed, and corrected. Bees are as important to our crops
as the water and the sunshine.
Again, I thank this Committee and Chairman Cardoza for his
attention to this important matter. I would be happy to try to answer
any questions the member of this Committee might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. As usual, Mr.
Etheridge has brought up one of his constituents that has given
us very salient testimony. We have some folks from the media
here today, and in the next few weeks and next few months,
people are going to be asking why food prices are so high, and
today you gave the testimony in advance to answer that
question. There is a lack of pollination. You have had to cut
down the number of acres that you have under production. Energy
costs and input costs to produce that food is costing you more
and you are going to have to pass that on, and then the
transportation costs and all the rest to get that food to
market is all going to be higher, and unfortunately, like you
indicated, the consumer is going to be paying higher prices and
bearing the brunt of all these input costs, and so you gave
some very salient testimony today to that question.
Next up we are going to have Mr. Edward Flanagan, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Jasper Wyman and Sons from
Millbridge, Maine, and then as soon as you are done with your
testimony, sir, we are going to recess for the duration of the
votes. I would like to make the floor available to you at this
time.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD R. FLANAGAN, PRESIDENT & CEO, JASPER WYMAN
& SON, MILLBRIDGE, ME
Mr. Flanagan. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza. My name is Ed
Flanagan. I am here today as the President and CEO of Jasper
Wyman & Son, the largest U.S.-owned blueberry grower. We grow
wild, or lowbush, blueberries in eastern Maine and we also have
operations on Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in the
Canadian Maritimes. In Maine, combining what we grow on our
land and what we buy from other growers, we process and market
between 35 and 40 percent of the U.S. wild blueberry crop. But
besides Wyman's, I am here to express the concern of all wild
blueberry and cultivated blueberry growers who according to the
USDA had farm gate value in 2007 of nearly $600 million. To
echo my colleague here beside me, in our business too, it is
simple: no bees, no blueberries.
You may not know that there are three fruits that are
native to North America: concord grapes, cranberries and wild
blueberries. Early Native Americans used wild blueberries for
food, coloring and for medicinal remedies. What they knew then,
the American consumer has come to know in the last several
years, thanks to well-grounded research from some of our best
universities and laboratories, and that is that blueberries are
one of the healthiest foods you can add to your diet. Wild
blueberries can't be planted, not here, not in Chile, not in
China. It is a root system that is indigenous to Maine and the
Maritimes and more like a mineral resource than a crop in that
way. Thus, it has always has strong, enduring export market
demand. It is a small but important crop for America and it is
a very important crop to the economy of eastern Maine.
That health news has led to some good years. In
agriculture, it seems that supply and demand are almost never
in balance. In the case of blueberries in recent years, demand
has been ahead of supply. Farm gate earnings have been healthy
and we have been able to absorb pollination costs that have
more than doubled in the last 3 years. We know that supply will
catch up with demand, prices will go down and we will need
sharp control of our costs. Agriculture is one tough and honest
way to make a living and we face our challenges head on, but we
are very scared at the prospect of no pollinating bees in our
fields. There is no alternative.
Wild blueberry fields, called barrens, are usually bordered
by forestland and we have learned to live with nature and its
perils and marvel at its complex interactions. For example, if
we don't string electrified wire around the hives in the
fields, the bears have a feast at our expense.
What scares us about Colony Collapse Disorder is what the
beekeepers have observed, healthy bees refusing to go into the
sick hives to rob the honey, the normal predators, hive beetles
and moths, keeping their distance from an impacted hive, the
practice of putting a healthy hive near a diseased one to
repopulate the weak one but instead it is killing the healthy
one. Something is very, very wrong.
A good wild blueberry crop needs three basic things to
happen: a snow cover over the low growing plants in the winter
to protect the buds from cold temperatures, good pollination in
May, and then from June to August, a good mix of sun and rain.
The wild blueberry crop blooms in May and it takes 2 to 3 weeks
to get good pollination. The bees won't work if it is cold or
windy, which it can be in Maine then, and we accept that
neither the beekeepers nor Congress can do anything about that.
The Chairman. Sir, I am going to need to interrupt. I have
been informed I have less than 3 minutes to get to the vote and
so I am going to have to call a recess. If you would just mark
a place in your testimony, we will reconvene the hearing as
soon as I can possibly get back from the votes. At this time
the Committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. If the witnesses and the guests would please
retake their seats, we will get this hearing reconstituted here
in just about 2 minutes.
If everyone is ready, we will continue the hearing. Mr.
Flanagan, I want to apologize. I have never had to interrupt
someone in the middle of their testimony before but the vote
just crept up on us. I apologize for having to interrupt you
and I would like if you can remember exactly where you were in
your testimony, I would like to give you the floor to continue
from that point.
Mr. Flanagan. I can. Thank you very much.
Where I left off was, the wild blueberry crop blooms in May
and it takes 2 to 3 weeks to get good pollination. The bees
won't work if it is cold or windy, which it can be in Maine
then, and we accept that neither the beekeepers nor Congress
can do anything about that. We don't ask for your help often
because really there isn't much you can do, but we do need it
here.
If you have my testimony in front of you, you can see what
a good blueberry crop in August looks like. Every single one of
those berries owes its existence to the crazy, neurotic dancing
of a honey bee from flower to flower. If there were no
beekeeping industry to come to Maine, the amount of fruit
pollinated by natural pollinators would not amount to enough to
keep farming the land. We would either be out of this business
all together or charging a price fivefold or tenfold what it is
now just to go out and get what was there.
I don't know who or why anyone would oppose budgeting
research funds for this critical problem. I urge you not to use
Washington inertia as an excuse. I firmly believe that if it
was the pesticide family of neonicotonoids, it may have been an
unintended consequence of the chemical industry trying to
replace directly toxic organophosphates with a more benign
alternative. We need to put the blame game aside and get to the
endpoint, which is knowledge.
Chairman Cardoza, I heard you inform us today that the labs
were rebudgeted at $10 million and CCD research received an
extra $800,000. The budget process here is a mystery to an out-
of-towner like me but an extra 8 percent in funding is way
short of what is needed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flanagan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward R. Flanagan, President & CEO, Jasper Wyman
& Son, Milbridge, ME
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I would like to make a point.
During this last series of votes, I talked to Mr. Alcee
Hastings from Florida, who has been a true champion on behalf
of getting to the bottom of this crisis. I also talked to
Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Agriculture, and both of them agreed with me and my previous
statement that funding should not be an issue here, that we
need to know exactly what funds are needed to bring to bear on
this program and we will work diligently to make sure that all
the funds necessary are used, that they are provided and used
to get to the bottom of this. Now, I am going to reiterate that
in no way should anyone leave here thinking that they should
not request the total amount necessary to get to the bottom of
this question, and Ms. DeLauro stands ready to be of assistance
to us. We will go to the Speaker. We will go to Mr. Reid. We
will go and shout off the top of the Washington Monument if
necessary. We will find the funds for this problem, but we have
to know exactly how much we need, and funds should not be an
excuse for why we can't find the problem on this research. So I
am just putting USDA on notice today that if next year or in 6
months we get back and we hear again that funds are a problem,
there is going to be some hell to pay. So let us understand
that all here together today.
Next up we have Ms. Katty Pien. I am sorry------
Ms. Pien. It is Katty.
The Chairman. Brand Director from Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream,
Oakland, California. My daddy used to butcher people's names
and I have taken up in his footsteps on this as well, so I
apologize. Thank you for being with us today.
STATEMENT OF KATTY PIEN, BRAND DIRECTOR, HAAGEN-DAZS ICE CREAM,
OAKLAND, CA
Ms. Pien. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Cardoza. My
name is Katty Pien and I am the Brand Director for Haagen-Dazs
Ice Cream, America's leading super-premium all-natural ice
cream. I will comment today on how pollinators are an essential
part of our business.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about Colony
Collapse Disorder and for the leadership you have shown in
addressing it through the pollinator provisions of the farm
bill. I would like to highlight some key points and ask that my
full statement be submitted for the record.
Haagen-Dazs has a major stake in the health of America's
honey bees. Pollination is essential for ingredients in more
than 40 percent of Haagen-Dazs flavors. For example, to produce
our vanilla Swiss almond and rocky road flavors, we use more
than 1 million pounds of almonds every year. Should the CCD
crisis continue, pollinated ingredients such as strawberries,
cherries, blueberries, and almonds could all become scarce or
too expensive to obtain, forcing us to evaluate whether we can
continue to offer flavors that depend on pollinated ingredients
because of higher production costs, which could lead to higher
consumer prices.
Haagen-Dazs recognized that to preserve our variety of
flavors, to help consumers and to be a responsible steward of
the resources we use, we needed to take corporate action.
Earlier this year we introduced Haagen-Dazs Loves Honey Bees, a
public education program. Among our efforts, we have launched a
limited edition flavor, vanilla honey bee, to pay tribute to
the hardworking honey bees. We pledged $250,000 to fund
sustainable pollination and CCD research at Pennsylvania State
University and the University of California Davis. We have
developed print, television and in-store advertising campaigns
drawing attention to this crisis. We have even launched a
dedicated consumer education website, helpthehoneybees.com.
Despite these efforts, there is a long way to go. A recent
survey commissioned by the Haagen-Dazs brand showed that more
than half of Americans are not even aware of the honey bee
crisis. Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream challenges other consumer
products companies reliant on pollinators to join us in
educating the public and helping efforts needed to save this
essential natural resource.
Nevertheless, robust Federal action is needed. We urge
Congress to fully implement and fund the pollinator provisions
of the farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time today. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pien folllows:]
Prepared Statement of Katty Pien, Brand Director, Haagen-
Dazs' Ice Cream, Oakland, CA
Chairman Cardoza, Ranking Member Neugebauer, and members of the
Subcommittee, good morning.
My name is Katty Pien. I am the Brand Director for Haagen-
Dazs' Ice Cream, America's leading super-premium all-natural
ice cream. The Haagen-Dazs brand sells more than 70 flavors of ice
cream, sorbet and frozen yogurt around the world. As you will learn,
pollinators are an essential part of our business.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the very important
issue of Colony Collapse Disorder, and for the leadership you have
shown in addressing it through the pollinator provisions of the Farm
Bill. Full funding and implementation of those provisions would be an
excellent step in ensuring the survival of America's honey bees.
I'm here today to highlight the importance of pollinators to
Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream; to explain the dangers posed to consumer
products such as ours by CCD; to highlight our corporate reaction to
the crisis; and to suggest next steps the federal government and the
private sector might take to reduce the impact of the crisis on
producers and consumers.
The Haagen-Dazs brand relies on the finest all-natural ingredients
for its ice cream. Not surprisingly, pollination is essential for
ingredients in more than 40 percent of Haagen-Dazs flavors. For
example, to produce our popular Vanilla Swiss Almond and Rocky Road
flavors, we use more than one million pounds of almonds every year.
Almonds, as you know, Mr. Chairman, are 100 percent dependent on honey
bees for pollination.
As you can see, the Haagen-Dazs brand has a major stake in the
health of America's honeybees. Should the CCD crisis continue
unchecked, pollinated ingredients such as strawberries, cherries and
almonds could become scarce or too expensive to obtain, forcing us to
evaluate whether we can continue offering popular flavors that depend
on pollinated ingredients because of higher production costs.
That brings us to the looming specter of higher consumer prices.
While CCD has not yet led to higher prices, we fear that's a likely
result if the crisis remains unabated. Farmers and pollinators will
either pass along their skyrocketing costs, or choose to exit a field
that is less profitable, thereby reducing the supply of pollinated
ingredients to companies such as Haagen-Dazs.
Mr. Chairman, a combination of private sector and government
efforts can make sure that doesn't happen.
The Haagen-Dazs brand is doing its part. We recognized that to
preserve our variety of flavors, to help consumers, and to be a
responsible steward of the resources we use, we needed to take
corporate action. Earlier this year, we introduced Haagen-Dazs loves
Honey Bees, a multi-faceted public education program. Among our
efforts:
A limited edition flavor, Vanilla Honey Bee, to draw
attention to the crisis.
A $250,000 pledge to fund sustainable pollination and CCD
research at Pennsylvania State University and the University of
California, Davis, partially funded by sales of Vanilla Honey
Bee ice cream and our other bee-dependent flavors.
A commitment to work with community groups to distribute 1
million bee-friendly flower seeds (more than 350,000
distributed so far).
A Honey Bee Board of leading scientists and beekeepers to
advise us on the issue.
An online, downloadable honey bee education program for
students and families, available at www.helpthehoneybees.com.
Sponsorship of ``The Vanishing of the Bees,'' a documentary
that investigates the bee crisis.
Print, television, in-store and online advertising campaigns
drawing attention to the crisis, as well as information in
retail stores.
At Haagen-Dazs offices, we landscape with bee-friendly
plants such as glory bushes, jasmine and rosemary.
We give our employees free seeds and encourage them to plant
bee-friendly gardens at home.
Despite those efforts, there's a long way to go. A recent survey
commissioned by the Haagen-Dazs brand showed that more than half of
Americans are not even aware of the honey bee crisis.
So Haagen-Dazs Ice Cream challenges other consumer-product
companies reliant on pollinators to step up to the plate--to educate
the public and help in efforts needed to save this essential natural
resource. It only makes economic sense that companies which benefit
from pollination should help ensure the survival of those species that
allow us to commercially thrive. We applaud Burt's Bees for doing so,
as well.
Nevertheless, there is no substitute for robust federal action in
this area. The Haagen-Dazs brand stands with the Pollinator Partnership
in urging Congress to fully fund and implement the pollinator
protection provisions of the recently-passed farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral presentation. I ask that my
entire statement be submitted for the record. Thank you for your time
today. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here, and God bless your
company for the work they do. Normally we don't have such a
high-profile corporate involvement in Congressional hearings,
but I will tell you that the work your company has done has
been quite extraordinary.
Ms. Pien. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Next up we have Mr. John------
Mr. Replogle. Replogle.
The Chairman. Replogle--I am so sorry, but I can't get that
one, my tongue doesn't seem to go that way--President and CEO
of Burt's Bees, Durham, North Carolina, and the fact is that I
can't say your name but I certainly know my children use your
products on a regular basis, so thank you for being here and
please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN REPLOGLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BURT'S BEES,
DURHAM, NC
Mr. Replogle. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to testify about the status of research and other activities
related to the health of the honey bees and to all pollinators.
My name is John Replogle and I am the President and CEO of
Burt's Bees based in Durham, North Carolina, a 400-person
company invested in the well-being of humans. More importantly,
I am the father of four girls and I am vitally interested in
their health and well-being.
Allow me to state the obvious: honey bees are important to
Burt's Bees. Our roots are entangled with theirs. We share
their name. Their image still adorns our logo, and to this day
a majority of our products rely on their instinctive skills.
The health and welfare of bees is very dear to us. While we
rely on bee byproducts as well as ingredients pollinated by
bees, our interest in the health of bees is also very closely
linked with our commitment to the environment. We work with our
suppliers to ensure our beeswax, honey and bee-pollinated
ingredients are sourced with bee-friendly and sustainable
sourcing methods. Our commitment to the finest natural
ingredients and products is intrinsically tied to how we care
for our environment. Even more important than our own product
supply is the impact on our bees to the overall health of the
ecosystem. Bees are responsible for pollinating a third of the
fruits and vegetables we eat, and collectively they support a
$15 billion cash crop as well as are the backbone to
ingredients of a $50 billion personal care industry here in the
United States.
Without being overstated, honey bee health is directly
linked to our planet's health and every person's well-being. If
we fail to take action now to mitigate the loss of honey bees,
there will be broad implications on the foods we love, the
plants that we depend on for many of our products and the well-
being of our planet. Put bluntly, in 2008, honey bees are the
proverbial canary in the coal mine. So go the bees, so goes the
well-being of all Americans.
We applaud and support the efforts by the Congress and by
the USDA to address Colony Collapse Disorder and other
pollinator health issues through the historical inclusion of
pollinators in the farm bill with both research and
conservation. I would like to say thank you to you, Chairman,
today for the Committee's pledge to fully fund the issue. I
believe business along with government can powerfully join
forces to have a positive impact on our changing environment.
Therefore, Burt's Bees has taken action directly, given the
gravity of this situation. We hope the government will continue
to play a much more active role in partnering with business to
find solutions to this acute issue.
While the causes for CCD are unknown, we do know that
forces like habitat disruption, misuse of pesticides, invasive
species and global warming create risks to honey bees. That is
why Burt's Bees is taking a holistic approach to honey bee
health. We have joined forces with the Pollinator Partnership
to provide funding to support research projects through the new
Honey Bee Health Improvement Project, which is guided by a task
force of the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign,
which is also focusing on four key areas: breeding stock
improvement, best practices for commercial beekeeping, effects
of pesticides and chemicals, and improving nutritional
resources. We are very pleased with the progress and quality
efforts of the task force and we have already committed to a
second year in partnering with the Pollinator Partnership.
Second, Burt's Bees has launched a public service awareness
campaign. Not enough Americans are aware of the issue today,
and we believe when individuals become aware of the
environmental challenges and are given information about simple
actions they can take, many will be inspired to take action.
Third, we are expanding our reach to make the issue known
on every main street in America. We are doing this by launching
a Help the Honey Bees beeswax lip balm with 5 percent of the
proceeds going to directly fund the Pollinator Partnership. We
will distribute over 2 million units to further engage
consumers and to fund research.
In closing, we at Burt's Bees truly believe that by helping
to save the bees, we save a lot more than the bees. We
appreciate the time, attention and leadership you are devoting
to the health of our pollinating partners. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Replogle follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Replogle, President and CEO, Burt's Bees,
Durham, NC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the status of research and other
activities related to the health of honeybees and all pollinators. My
name is John Replogle, and I am President and CEO of Burt's Bees, which
is headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. Burt's Bees is the leading
Natural Personal Care brand, bringing Earth-friendly, natural personal
care products to consumers for more than 20 years. Our mission, simply
put, is `to make people's lives better everyday, naturally.' We do this
by creating the best natural personal care products with the finest
natural ingredients to help individuals maximize their well-being and
the well-being of the world around them. We operate our business with a
commitment to The Greater Good--care for our products, our planet and
our communities.
Why Burt's Bees is Involved in Pollinator Health Efforts:
Honeybees are important to Burt's Bees. Our roots are entangled
with theirs. We share their name. Their image still adorns our logo.
And, to this day, many of our products rely on their instinctive
skills. Our co-founder, Burt Shavitz, was a beekeeper for over 20
years.
Indeed, bees are the foundation of Burt's Bees' business. The
health and welfare of bees are very dear to us. Even though we get
beeswax and honey in a completely bee-friendly way, we know we all can
and must do more. More important than our own product supply, the
impact of bees on our ecosystem is critical--they are responsible for
\1/3\ of the food we eat. It's another major indicator that
demonstrates the importance of caring for our environment. If we fail
to take action, there could be further negative impact on the fruits
and vegetables that we eat as well as the biodiversity of the plants
that we depend on for many of our products.
Burt's Bees is deeply concerned about the health of honeybees and
other pollinators because of two of our core beliefs: natural
ingredients work in harmony with the body; and we must protect and
provide for the precious resources of our planet. Many of the natural
ingredients in our personal care products are either directly produced
by honeybees, such as beeswax and honey, or are derived from plants
pollinated by honeybees, such as almond oil, sunflower oil, avocado
butter and peach stone. To make certain that all our products meet the
highest natural standards, we carefully craft them using time-tested,
proven recipes with ingredients that are the best nature has to offer:
beeswax, botanical and essential oils, herbs, flowers and minerals.
These safe, effective ingredients have withstood the test of time. And
because of that, we never use any ingredient that isn't proven safe and
effective. This fine attention to quality is recognized by our
consumers; for the past two years, college students around the country
have recognized us as one of the Top 10 Socially Responsible Companies
through the Alloy U awards.
Burt's Bees has a long-standing commitment to the environment,
which is a central component of our mission. We are committed to
leading innovation in our choices for packaging, using materials that
are biodegradable, recycled and/or recyclable. We strive to operate our
business with constant attention to minimizing our impact, including
reducing our energy and water use and educating and inspiring our
employees to change personal habits. For example, our company grew 26
percent in 2007 and, through the work of our dedicated team, was able
to reduce our energy use by 2 percent. In 2008, the Carolina Recycling
Association gave Burt's Bees an award for the Best Business Recycling
Program, which was developed and led by volunteer employees. This year,
we also led the first annual Planet Earth Celebration in Raleigh, NC,
attended by over 15,000 members of our community.
Burt's Bees got its start back in 1984 in Maine, when Roxanne
Quimby and Burt Shavitz teamed up selling candles and lip balm made
from the beeswax created as a by-product of Burt's honey business. At
the very first craft fair, they sold $200 worth, and by the end of the
first year, sales climbed to $20,000. As the company grew, they
realized the need to relocate to best position for further growth and
brought the company to North Carolina in 1993. Since then, company
growth has been a testament to individuals living the `American Dream,'
with the company experiencing double-digit growth year over year,
reaching $350 million in retail sales in 2007.
Actions to Support Honeybee Health:
Burt's Bees has chosen to take a holistic approach to supporting
honeybee health. Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, has been the
catalyst for increased research efforts, even though it is one of a
myriad of challenges confronting honeybees, beekeepers, and growers who
require pollination services as a vital stage in crop production. While
the causes for Colony Collapse Disorder are unknown, we do know that
forces such as habitat destruction, misuse of pesticides, invasive
species and global warming create risks to honeybees.
Research is critical to providing the knowledge and science-based
solutions needed to address CCD and a host of other challenges
threatening the health and sustainability of honeybees and other
pollinators. We commend the increasing efforts by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct and coordinate research on CCD and
other challenges impacting honeybees and other pollinators, such as
USDA's CCD research action plan launched last summer.
We also applaud this Subcommittee, the Agriculture Committee, and
the Congress for enacting a new farm bill that for the first time
includes pollinator-specific research and conservation provisions
laying the groundwork for further action.
Burt's Bees urges the Congress to provide additional funding for
pollinator research and conservation in the Fiscal Year 2009
appropriations. We also urge the research and conservation agencies at
USDA to take maximum advantage of the new pollinator provisions in the
farm bill in implementing their programs.
I believe business, along with government, can collaborate as a
powerful force to positively impact our changing environment. At Burt's
Bees, we feel a responsibility to take action directly, given the
gravity of the situation. After considering options on how best to
help, Burt's Bees joined forces last fall with the Pollinator
Partnership. We are providing funding for research projects through the
Pollinator Partnership's Honeybee Health Improvement Project, which is
focusing on four critical areas:
1. Breeding stock improvements
2. Best practices for commercial beekeeping
3. Effects of pesticides and chemicals
4. Improving nutritional resources
The Honeybee Health Improvement Project is being managed by the
Honeybee Health Improvement Task Force of the North American Pollinator
Protection Campaign (NAPPC). NAPPC is a tri-national, public-private
sector collaboration facilitated by the Pollinator Partnership. With a
well-respected team of researchers guiding the project, we believe
their work will go a long way in improving honeybee health and
sustainability.
Additional information about the Task Force and research projects
is provided in the testimony of the Pollinator Partnership as well as
at www.pollinator.org/honeybee_health.htm.
As a bee-friendly company, we know the critical role bees play in
our ecosystem. We are proud to support this Task Force and believe the
research projects will yield outcomes that will help improve the health
of bees and indeed benefit all of us who depend upon their industrious
pollination labors.
Burt's Bees has been so pleased with the progress and quality of
existing efforts that we have already committed to a second year in
partnering with the Pollinator Partnership.
Increasing Public Awareness and Encouraging Consumers to Take Action:
Burt's Bees believes that when individual citizens become aware of
environmental challenges and are given information about simple actions
they can take to help, many will be inspired to take action. Individual
actions can collectively make a difference.
Last year Burt's Bees produced a 60-second Public Service
Announcement (PSA) (http://www.burtsbees.com) that describes the CCD
problem and outlines basic actions our consumers can take to help,
including purchasing locally grown organic foods and planting bee-
pollinated flower seeds. Visitors to our website are encouraged to
visit the Pollinator Partnership's website (http://www.pollinator.org)
for more information.
The PSA launched last November, generating over 5 million
impressions in its first few weeks. Through the PSA and our website, we
distributed over 50,000 seed packets in just 8 weeks. That's millions
of flowers planted around the country that represent forage for
honeybees and other pollinators. We continue to educate consumers with
the PSA this year on our website and as part of our 2008 Bee-utify Your
World Mobile Tour, which will be visiting 30 cities around the United
States. While we know flower seed packets aren't the cure, we hope
they'll help broadcast the problem and educate consumers about the
life-giving role that bees play in a healthy, balanced food chain.
This year, Burt's Bees is taking another step to increase public
awareness and contribute funding to support pollinator protection
efforts by launching a ``Help the Honeybees'' Beeswax Lip Balm, with 5
percent of proceeds directed to support the Pollinator Partnership's
Honeybee Health Improvement Project. The lip balm package and
supporting in-store displays publicize the issue, the need to take
action and where to learn more about what can be done to help.
In closing, we at Burt's Bees truly believe that by helping to save
the bees, we save a lot more than the bees. That is why we are
motivated to support pollinator health research to increase public
awareness and encourage individuals to take action.
We appreciate the time, attention and leadership you are devoting
to the health of our pollinating partners.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your testimony.
And finally, we have with us today Ms. Laurie Davies Adams,
Executive Director of the Pollinator Partnership from San
Francisco, California. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF LAURIE DAVIES ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
POLLINATOR PARTNERSHIP, SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Ms. Davies Adams. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for this opportunity to testify. I am Laurie Davies Adams
and I am the Executive Director of the Pollinator Partnership,
a nonprofit promoting sustainable agriculture and biodiversity
through research, education, conservation, policy and
partnerships, and our largest initiative is the management of
the North American Pollinator Protection Campaign, or NAPPC,
which is a public-private collaboration of over 125 North
American stakeholders from industry, government, NGOs and
science to be proactive in their support of the health of all
pollinators. So, we concern ourselves not just with bees but
with butterflies, beetles, bats, birds and more.
Now, you have heard that the critical role of animal
pollinators in American agriculture is clear. It underscores
the need, however, to have a continued focus on the totality of
pollination systems. That includes managed and solitary bees
but also other animals. The loss of habitat has been identified
by the National Academy of Sciences as one of the irrefutable
factors in the decline of pollinators. Pollinators suffer from
real estate scarcity. Both commercial bees and natives face
diminishing floral resources and nesting sites. The reason:
development, pesticide misuse, invasive species, edge-to-edge
farming. They have all contributed to the disappearance and
fragmentation of habitat.
This week, National Pollinator Week, we introduce a program
on our website, pollinator.org, called Selecting Plants for
Pollinators, a series of ecoregional guides that are available
free of charge to farmers and ranchers, public land managers,
professional home gardeners and home gardeners, and the general
public to help solve the habitat problem. The guides are step-
by-step instruction manuals with specific plant lists and bloom
periods for each ecoregion, and to help people know their
ecoregion, we have created a ZIP Code habitat locator and that
we developed with the U.S. Geological Survey and NBII. It
provides Google satellite data to determine the exact habitat
and then connects to an ecoregional guide. The first six guides
roll out this week, two more each month until September when we
will complete all 35 next year at the end of 2009, and with
your permission I will show you this right after my testimony.
Why have ecoregional guides? They provide the best science
for critical pollinator habitat. All of our NALC partners, but
most especially NRCS and CSREES, NACD and the Forest Service
will help distribute links. Now, why is this so important to
agriculture? These guides were developed on a model from
Montana NRCS, a project developed by State Conservationist,
Dave White, who pioneered WHIP and EQIP support for pollinator-
friendly plantings. So our guides expand that opportunity
across the country and specifically support the recent
inclusion of pollinator plantings in the farm bill.
I think we can all feel proud of all of the work and all
the testimony you have heard today and contributions by groups
like NALC and by visionary companies like Burt's Bees and
Haagen-Dazs and also by vast numbers of everyday citizens. This
issue resonates with people more than any agricultural and
conservation issue I can remember. It crosses every age, every
demographic and every political stripe. People care about bees,
but they also want to do something. America is awakening to the
terrifying prospect that our pollinator and the agro- and
ecosystems that they support are in jeopardy, but I also want
to assure that you Americans are also expressing their
eagerness to step forward to engage in positive result-
producing actions. Thanks to the ecoregional guides, there is
something important to contribute on the ground. It is just one
step, but it is significant. You have heard today about
problems that involve nutrition, that involve pesticides and
foraging. This is a first step that we can do in every
Congressional district in every state, in every city, on every
farm, in every school. We can do it now. It is part of a
comprehensive approach that we applaud this Committee for
having.
We applaud your leadership and we hope that you will
continue to push this as much as it deserves. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Davies Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laurie Davies Adams, Executive Director,
Pollinator Partnership, San Francisco, CA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify about the status of research and other
activities related to the health of honeybees and other pollinators. My
name is Laurie Davies Adams, and I am Executive Director of the
Pollinator Partnership.
Interest of the Pollinator Partnership:
The Pollinator Partnership (P2) \1\ is a nonprofit organization
headquartered in San Francisco, California. P2's mission is to catalyze
stewardship of biodiversity. P2 places a high priority on efforts to
protect and enhance animal pollinators (invertebrates, birds and
mammals) and their habitats in both working and wild lands. More
information about P2 may be accessed at http://www.pollinator.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Founded as the Coevolution Institute, now does business as the
Pollinator Partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P2 is a strong advocate of a collaborative, science-based approach.
P2 is honored to have a number of beneficial pollinator partnership
efforts ongoing through management of the North American Pollinator
Protection Campaign (NAPPC), a tri-national, public-private
collaboration of scientific researchers, managers and other employees
of state and federal agencies, private industry and conservation and
environmental groups dedicated to ensuring sustainable populations of
pollinating invertebrates, birds and mammals throughout the United
States, Canada and Mexico. NAPPC's voluntary participants from over 125
entities are working together to proactively:
Promote awareness and scientific understanding of
pollinators;
Gather, organize and disseminate information about
pollinators;
Provide a forum to identify and discuss pollinator issues;
and
Promote projects, initiatives and activities that enhance
pollinators.
Since its founding in 1999, NAPPC has been an instrumental
cooperative conservation force in focusing attention on the importance
of pollinators and the need to protect them throughout North America.
More information about NAPPC and its collaborative efforts can be found
at http://www.nappc.org.
Pollinators Play Critical Role in Agriculture and Are at Risk:
Insect and other animal pollinators play a pivotal part in the
production of food that humans eat--with estimates as high as one out
of every three bites--and in the reproduction of at least 80 percent of
flowering plants. The commodities produced with the help of animal
pollinators generate significant income for agricultural producers. For
example, domestic honeybees pollinate an estimated $15 billion worth of
crops in the U.S. each year, produced on more than 2 million acres. It
is increasingly recognized that native bees also contribute
significantly, providing ``free'' ag pollination services. Recent
estimates credit native pollinators for providing about $3 billion
annually in crop pollination services.
The cost for pollination services as a purchased agricultural input
has actually increased at a higher rate than energy prices over the
past several years. The availability and reliability of these
pollination services are no longer certain. It is thus in the economic
interest of both agriculture and American consumers to help ensure a
healthy, sustainable population of honeybees and native pollinators.
Today, possible declines in the health and population of
pollinators in North America and globally pose what could be a
significant threat to the integrity of biodiversity, to global food
webs, and to human health. A number of pollinator species are at risk.
Due to several reported factors, the number of commercially managed
honeybee colonies in the U.S. has declined from 5.9 million in the
1940's to 4.3 million in 1985 and 2.5 million in 1998. All indications
are the problem has worsened in recent years.
About 900,000 rented colonies are employed to pollinate 500,000
acres of just one major cash crop, almonds, grown in California--and
that acreage is increasing. Producers of other specialty crops are
increasingly concerned about the reliability and cost of pollination
services. Availability and reliability of pollination services are the
top priority to producers--simply stated, no pollination, no crop!
CCD Wakeup Call for Pollinator Conservation Action:
Even as efforts are appropriately focused on research to find out
how to address Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and other issues related
to pollinator health, there are scientifically based actions we can
take. We have the scientific understanding to know that improving
habitat for both honeybees and native pollinators is an important tool
to improve pollinator health. Here are some conservation actions that
can be taken now:
Farmers can incorporate pollinator-beneficial practices now
in their conservation efforts.
Congress can help now by funding research and conservation
provisions under the new Farm Bill to realize their potential
to provide farmers and ranchers with pollinator assistance.
USDA can help now by implementing pollinator provisions in
the new Farm Bill, coordinating efforts and collaborating with
the ag community and other natural resource managers.
P2 pledges to help now by continuing to facilitate
collaborative efforts on pollinator research, conservation and
public awareness.
All Americans can help now with pollinator-friendly
practices in their own back yards.
New Ecoregional Guides Tool for Native Habitat for Pollinators:
To empower stakeholders with the information needed to move forward
with pollinator habitat conservation efforts on the ground, P2 is
pleased to announce the National Pollinator Week launch of the first
six in a new series of practical Ecoregional Guides, ``Selecting Plants
for Pollinators.'' There are 35 ecoregions in the United States, and
within two years there will be a guide released for each ecoregion. Two
new guides each will be released in July, August and September.
These guides are intended to be practical tools for farmers,
ranchers and gardeners who want to establish habitat for honeybees and
native pollinators through native plants that are specific to their own
region. The guides are available in downloadable form for free at
http://www.pollinator.org along with information about how to use them.
Exhibit 1 is a short Q&A on the guides. Exhibit 2 is a 1-page flier on
the new guides that is being widely distributed.
What is an ecoregion? Why aren't we developing guides by state or
county or other familiar geographic delineation? Scientists in USDA and
elsewhere told us that plants and pollinators don't ``think'' along
state or county lines. Scientists recommended that we use an
established system of ecoregions that could be used to match native
plants and pollinators. Ecoregions (ecological regions, or bioregions)
denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type,
quality, and quantity of environmental resources. The biodiversity of
flora, fauna (including pollinators) and ecosystems that characterize
an ecoregion tend to be distinct from that of other ecoregions. These
general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing
ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state
agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for
different types of resources within the same geographical areas.
You have no idea what your ecoregion address is? P2 was struggling
with a way to connect this tool to potential users. Our partners at the
National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) pointed us to an
existing online system. NBII is a broad, collaborative program to
provide increased access to data and information on the nation's
biological resources.
All you need is your ZIP Code, and our online ZIP Code Habitat
Locator will connect you to your ecosystem map and guide. If the guide
for your ecoregion is not yet available, you can enter your e-mail
address and receive an alert when it becomes available.
For illustrative purposes, Exhibit 3 is the full ecoregional guide
for the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest. As indicated on the map
on page 7 of the guide, this ecoregion includes the District of
Columbia and parts of Virginia and Maryland, with the region portions
of states from Pennsylvania to South Carolina. The first part of each
guide covers standard information, including:
Why pollinators are important, and Getting started
Understanding the ecoregion covered by the guide
Meet the pollinators, and Which flowers the pollinators
prefer
Developing landscape plantings that provide pollinator
habitat
Tips for--Farmers, Public land managers, and Home
landscapes
Each guide provides plant-pollinator information specific to that
ecoregion, including (1) Bloom periods; (2) Native plants that attract
pollinators; and (3) Habitat hints. Finally, each guide provides
additional resources and tips, including (1) Habitat and nesting
requirements different pollinators; (2) Basic checklist; and (3) Where
to access additional information.
It is important to emphasize that the guides are science-based and
that great care has been taken to avoid including any invasive species
in selecting the recommended lists of native plants specific to each
ecoregion.
The guides are being funded by the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, the C.S. Fund, the Plant Conservation Alliance, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. P2 is providing
oversight. NAPPC volunteers have provided expertise in the development
of the guides. The concept was also reviewed by a number of agencies
and trade associations like the American Farm Bureau Federation and the
National Garden Association. The guides will undergo continuing review
and can be readily updated since they are maintained online.
The ecoregional guides were inspired by ``Montana Native Plants for
Pollinator-Friendly Plantings,'' a pamphlet published in 2005 by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Montana under the
leadership of David White, State Conservationist. The pamphlet was
offered to farmers and ranchers and nurseries. On a trial basis, the
State NRCS offered bonus eligibility points in selected cost-share
programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to farmers and ranchers
who opted to include pollinator habitat in their conservation efforts.
P2 is conducting a follow up study under a Conservation Innovation
Grant from the Montana NRCS--including a survey, field visits and a
demonstration site to determine how well the program worked and how it
could be made better in the future. One thing we have learned from this
initiative is that native plantings differ in different parts of
Montana. This helped prompt our effort to look for better approaches,
which ultimately led to the ecoregional planting guides.
P2 hopes to collaborate with NRCS, using the Montana pamphlet and
the improved information in the ecoregional guides to develop similar
user-friendly pamphlets for other states.
National Academy Report Blueprint for Science-Based Actions:
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a major report in
late 2006--before CCD became an issue of concern--on the status and
health of pollinators in North America that included a number of
recommendations on research and conservation action. That report was
released at a day-long Pollinator Symposium put together by P2/NAPPC
and hosted by USDA. The NAS study came about as a result of a 4-year
campaign by NAPPC partners and was supported by 52 national
organizations including major farm, commodity and agribusiness groups.
Diverse stakeholders found common ground in the principle that sound
science is essential to guiding policies and actions related to the
future of pollinators. In essence, the report from a cadre of top
researchers in North America recommends that we must (1) improve our
scientific understanding, (2) increase awareness about the amazing
world of pollinators and their importance to our food supply and
healthy ecosystems, and (3) take action to protect pollinators and
their habitat. These recommendations are now serving as a science-based
blueprint as we move forward on research, conservation and other
initiatives.
P2/NAPPC Honeybee Health Task Force Research Efforts:
To help address multiple concerns about the health of our nation's
honeybees, last fall P2 facilitated the establishment of a Honeybee
Health Improvement Task Force through NAPPC. Top scientists from
universities and federal agencies were recruited and teamed up with
leading representatives of the beekeeping community.
Burt's Bees stepped up and donated vital funding to support the
Task Force at NAPPC's International Pollinator Summit, hosted by the
Department of the Interior last October. P2 applauds the leadership
provided by Burt's Bees and major contributions for research on
honeybee health and sustainable pollination to the University of
California-Davis and Penn State by Haagen Dazs. Haagen Dazs has joined
the growing P2 team this year as a partner and sponsor. An exciting but
less well known story is that individuals from all walks of life are
also making contributions to help support pollinator health efforts,
from school children to private individuals and foundations.
The Task Force has worked to identify specific research needs that
would complement research being funded by USDA. In response to a
request for proposals, nineteen eligible proposals were received from
applicants all around North America, totaling more than $200,000 in
funding requests. The caliber and diversity of the proposals received
speak to the importance of and need for honeybee health research. The
five one-year grants awarded cover a broad range of honey bee related
topics such as the effects of climate or environmental variables, the
effects of nutrition on honey bee physiology and/or colony health, the
effects of sublethal doses of pesticides (including miticides) on honey
bee physiology and/or colony health, and genetic stock improvement. A
list of proposals that have been awarded follows:
``Assessment of sublethal effects of imidacloprid on honey
bee and colony health'' (University of Maryland Foundation;
Dively and Embrey)
``Diagnostic gene panel for honey bee breeding and disease
management'' (USDA-ARS Bee Research Lab; Evans and Chen)
``Effects of miticide and Fumagilin-B on honey bee
survivorship and immune responses'' (Acadia University; Little,
Shutler, and others)
``Changes in hormonal and protein levels in honey bees that
are experiencing migratory transportation'' (Michigan State
University; Huang)
``Nutritional effects on intestinal health and longevity of
honey bee workers'' (University of North Carolina at
Greensboro; Rueppell)
A more complete description of the Honeybee Health Task Force and
research projects is provided in Exhibit 4 and at http://
www.pollinator.org/honeybee_health.htm.
We appreciate the increasing efforts by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to conduct and coordinate research on CCD and other
challenges impacting honeybees and other pollinators, such as USDA's
CCD research action plan launched last summer. We also applaud this
Subcommittee, the Agriculture Committee and the Congress for enacting a
new farm bill that for the first time includes pollinator-specific
research and conservation provisions that lay the groundwork for
additional action. The Pollinator Partnership is urging the Congress to
provide additional funding for pollinator research and conservation in
the Fiscal Year 2009 appropriations. We also urge the research and
conservation agencies at USDA to take maximum advantage of the new
pollinator provisions in the farm bill in implementing their programs.
New Farm Bill Provides New Pollinator Protection Provisions:
P2 commends this Subcommittee and the Congress for including
pollinator-beneficial provisions in the research, conservation and
specialty crops titles of the new Farm Bill. A summary is available at
http://www.pollinator.org/Resources/
PollinatingtheFarmBill,ConferenceReportSummary.pdf.
Conservation programs can be highly effective in addressing factors
which can contribute to pollinator declines including: habitat
fragmentation, loss, and degradation causing a reduction of food
sources and sites for mating, nesting, roosting, and migration;
improper use of pesticides and herbicides; aggressive competition from
non-native species; disease, predators, and parasites; climate change;
and lack of floral diversity. Effective pollinator protection practices
often overlap and complement other conservation practices, particularly
those designed to improve wildlife habitat, and vice versa. In other
instances, a practice designed to achieve wildlife or other
conservation practices could generate significant pollinator benefits
by integrating modest enhancements.
The focused objective of targeted modifications to authorizing
language is to better equip and direct USDA research and conservation
agencies to build on current pollinator-related efforts by the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Cooperative State, Research,
Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and other agencies and to help farmers,
ranchers, foresters and other private natural resources incorporate
pollinator needs in their conservation efforts. Pollinators,
agriculture and healthy ecosystems deserve no less.
Pollinator Importation Can Do More Harm Than Good:
If CCD and other pollinator health issues continue to threaten ag
pollination services, P2 cautions against scrambling to fill the void
by importing non-native pollinator species from other countries or
other eco-regions. If CCD proves to be a persistent problem, the
pressure to allow such remedies could grow. We need to avoid
compounding one problem by unintentionally creating others that could
make the situation far worse. Imported species intended for a good use
can quickly become out-of-control invasive species (including pests and
diseases the imported species may carry and introduce). The unintended
consequences could overwhelm the beneficial effects of research and
conservation measures and actions facilitated by the Farm Bill.
This problem and the demonstrated risks involved are so great that
NAPPC collaborators teamed up in 2006 and produced a ``Bee Importation
White Paper'' focused on the risks and consequences of importing non-
native bumble bees. The following excerpt captures what is at stake:
``Non-native species introductions may have dramatic negative
consequences. In the last century, invasive species of all
types have cost the U.S. an estimated $137 billion in damages
(Pimentel et al. 2000). Yet introductions of exotic plants and
animals persist, partly because those who introduce exotic
plants and animals may not fully understand or bear the
consequences of their behavior (Perrings et al. 2002), which
can be devastating on both economic and ecological scales.''
[p. 23]
The report is available at http://www.pollinator.org/Resources/
BEEIMPORTATION_AUG2006.pdf and includes a number of key
recommendations. If trans-boundary shipments of pollinating species are
considered, the greatest care must be undertaken in developing
effective protocols to prevent such unintended consequences.
National Pollinator Week June 22-28, 2008:
June 22-28, 2008 was designated as National Pollinator Week through
a proclamation by Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer. A number of
events across the nation to celebrate and raise public awareness about
our pollinating partners and the need to take actions that protect
pollinators and their habitat. For example--
On June 25, P2 hosted a briefing on the status and plight
of bees and other pollinators.
Governors in 26 States have signed proclamations Pollinator
Week at the State level.
Pollinator Week activities and events are occurring in at
least 38 States and Canada.
P2 has launched the first six Ecoregional Guides,
``Selecting Plants for Pollinators.''
P2 is signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), with the
first action focused on the Ecoregional Guides.
Pollinator Podcasts produced in partnership with the
Department of the Interior http://www.pollinator.org/
podcast.htm.
Free items, including ``Bounty of Bees'' Poster and
Pollinator Wheels.
The goal is to encourage actions in support of pollinators through
the year. More information is available at (http://www.pollinator.org/
pollinator_week_2008.htm).
CoE stands ready to work with this Subcommittee and interested
stakeholders to help ensure that honeybees and native pollinators are
sustained for the benefit of agriculture, consumers and healthy
ecosystems.
Respectfully Submitted,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Laurie Davies Adams,
Executive Director.
Exhibit 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit 3
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Exhibit 4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Davies Adams. You
had mentioned that you wanted to share something with us right
after your testimony. Do you want to do that at this time?
Ms. Davies Adams. Yes. If you go to pollinator.org, you
will see this page. If you go to the next page, if you were to
go up to the corner where the ecoregional guides are, you would
go to a page that then asks you if you already know your
ecoregion, you can get the guide for free, but you can also
type in your ZIP Code and find your ecoregion. It will connect
you to a map. This, for example, is a map that includes this
area but it also shows you your total ecoregion. I actually
have your ecoregion, Chairman. I can identify it for you but
that guide is not coming until our next round. You are in the
California dry step province.
But I think what is interesting is, this is a new way for
people to actually look at where they live. A lot of people
say, think global, act local. Local really means your habitat.
It really means a natural system of which you are a part along
with plants and animals, so this is a system we hope everyone
will take advantage of.
The Chairman. Thank you. I couldn't agree more.
Mr. Godlin, I want to start by asking you a question.
Concerns continue to be raised over the impact of agricultural
pesticides on honey bee populations. In the March 2007 hearing
of this Committee, we asked those questions, and my experience
has been that farmers and ranchers are generally incredibly
wise users of agricultural pesticides. In fact, there are two
reasons. First of all, they know the impacts of those
pesticides and they want to be judicious in their application,
and second of all, pesticides cost dollars, and they don't want
to apply any more and increase their cost any more than
necessary. So generally I found that farmers are very
responsible users of pesticides, and follow the label
directions on pesticides that have impacts on these practices
to minimize those effects, is my understanding. Yet concern
over the role of pesticides continues to appear. Many of you
mentioned it in your testimony today. We have heard it several
times. I would like for each of you to discuss as you are
capable of in greater detail your perspective on pesticide use
vis-a-vis this problem, and as I asked last year, is labeling
the problem, is it an education problem, does EPA need to
reassess its methodology for registering pesticides in view of
what has been claimed to be potentially lethal and sublethal
effects on the bee population. We will start with you, Mr.
Godlin, and then we will go down in the same order as you
originally testified.
Mr. Godlin. Thank you. It is true that they don't want to
apply anything they don't need to, and------
The Chairman. That being farmers?
Mr. Godlin. Farmers, and we are, as I said, we rent bees
for almonds and we rent bees for seed alfalfa on the J.G.
Boswell Company. They spray us. We know they are going to spray
us. I don't put that many hives in that contract for that
reason, but we always had a relationship with that company
forever. They have tried very hard not to kill bees. They have
worked on a number of concoctions trying to do as little damage
as they can, and yet still protect their crop. Other crops that
we sit around are corn, alfalfa and cotton, and again, these
are places where I am sitting to try to benefit my bees with
pollen and nectar, and farmers don't grow crops for bees, they
grow crops to sell to make money, and I am a guest. I pay them
honey. I give them whiskey at Christmas. I am their best
friend, and I am registering with the counties for pesticide
notification so I can either move the bees out or not go, and
we do have registration and pesticide notification that has
been very helpful. But again, I am not going to tell that man,
hey, you can't spray your crop. I am gone. He is going to say
``What? You know, I am not growing this for you,'' and this is
the problem is, we don't have a way to--I have to take the hit
or not go, and if I don't go, I am sitting on what we call
fencepost honey or dirt clod honey and those don't exist, so I
am kind of forced to go to these locations year after year.
Some years are worse than others. Some years, bug pressure is
not bad, we don't have a problem. Other years, it is terrible
and we are forced to pull out, give up, get out, it is bad,
don't go. But we go to these growers with our hat in our hand
to ask for these locations, and that is the problem. We don't
have the authority or the right to tell these guys what to do
with their crop.
The Chairman. We understand that. Let me ask a follow-up.
With regard to, you were talking about one farmer that you
still provide your bees to, you know they are going to spray.
Have you seen significant detrimental effects post spray in
those areas? Is that something that------
Mr. Godlin. Sometimes.
The Chairman. Sometimes? So it may not be the cause all the
time?
Mr. Godlin. No, I don't think so. I know that they keep
working on better and better materials, like the imidacloprid
to get rid of the organophosphates that everybody knows are
harmful. But as far as the labeling and things, I am not a
scientist. I am not a spray guy. I just know that I think
progress is being made, but it is terribly slow.
The Chairman. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment on
this question? Yes, let us go on the order. Mr. Mendes.
Mr. Mendes. I think it is important to say that we are
really not talking about misuse of pesticides. Certainly that
could happen but that is not our concern right now. I have been
in the pollination business 30 years. I work with 200 cranberry
growers. I work with vine crops in Florida. Growers are
responsible for the most part. You get an exception once in a
while, but that is not my experience at all. Growers aren't the
problem. The mode of action of the products that we are
concerned with now has changed and the regulation has not kept
up with it. The way that pesticides are regulated under EPA
right now is a system called LD50s. It is a lethal dose that it
kills a certain percentage of the bees, and the new products
that we are concerned about have very low toxicity to adult
bees. That is not our concern. We have dealt with that over the
years. You get a bee kill, you get a lot of dead bees on the
ground, you know what you hit, you know what happened, you move
on with that, and I think that is what Steve was talking about.
But what has happened now, these new products, these
systemics, they can be applied to the soil, they can be applied
foliarly, they can be seed treated on corn, for instance. Corn
is coming up everywhere. The price of corn is sky high. People
that have had problems in the Midwest in the last 2 years, they
planted corn near their bee yards, all of a sudden their bees
are coming apart and they don't come apart right away. The way
these products work is, it does not kill the adult bees. The
bees come back to the hive, it goes into the pollen. They feed
that pollen to the bees in the developmental stages and it
affects the nervous system of the bees. The reason we know this
is, if you read the research on how these products are used in
a normal way to treat termites, this is what they say, that it
affects feeding behavior, it affects the immune system of the
insect and it creates memory loss. That is what we are seeing
in our hives. If you want to understand CCD, the frustrating
thing is that the cause and effect seem separate. You could be
exposed in March or April and your bees look fine through the
summer. Come October, first little bit of cold snap or first
time when there is no food coming into the hive, they are
coming apart, or even in January they are coming apart. So the
whole mode of action has changed.
So it is not a misuse. The farmers aren't the problem. It
is the products that they have to work with, and the difficulty
right now is these new products are the wave of the future. I
talked to my blueberry growers, I talk to my cranberry growers.
They are pulling the organophosphates and they are replacing
them with these products and it is scaring me to death because
I can't--I don't even know when I am hit. It has made the bees
sick and you can't fix that once it is inside the hive. So it
is a very different process than what we have dealt with in the
past.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Anyone else want to speak specifically to this? Let us go
in order. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just
like to say that I agree with Mr. Mendes that the farmers are
going to use what they have available to them. Now, what tests
the EPA are conducting with regard to the honey bees, we can't
control that. Obviously it is a concern for us. We want to use
these products as a tool, and in the most cost-effective and
safe way as possible for the environment and for us.
One thing I think we need to be aware of, I think that a
problem of this magnitude and what we are seeing happen to the
honey bee in general, I think it is going to be like any other
disaster. There is no one cause. I think at the end of the day
when we figure this out, if it is tomorrow or if it is 15 years
from now, it is going to be a multipronged issue that has
several variations of problems to it. I think pesticides can be
the easy scapegoat right now in the early stages and I will
just push for more testing, more research, and that is
definitely what we need at the university level because the
first thing, pesticides cause everything from cancer to
baldness, just the first thing you shoot off the hip from, and
I think we need to be very careful, but we do need to address
the issue.
The Chairman. Yes, I agree with you, sir, because it seems
a little bit fishy to me. I don't dispute at all what Mr.
Mendes says. I believe------
Mr. Edwards. And neither do I.
The Chairman.--it is very plausible. But on the other hand,
you are seeing wild bees be affected. You are seeing bees being
affected in other countries that wouldn't have access to those
products. So the fact that this is global in nature lends
itself to the belief that there may be multiple causes, or
there may be one cause that is affecting us that we haven't
figured out yet. It could be just bees are made weaker by a
combination of all these factors and then they are being more
susceptible to diseases that then get spread through global
transportation methods that are now being employed.
Mr. Flanagan, then Ms. Davies Adams.
Mr. Flanagan. Thank you, Chairman Cardoza. One quick
comment. I have been in agriculture a long time and I am a
believer in the benefits of the Clean Water Act and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Those two Acts came
out of a crisis of the 1960s and I think it produced the safest
food supply in the world and some of the best turnarounds in
water quality possible.
So having said that though, I think in the beekeeping
world, the CEO of a beekeeping company is the same guy that
drives the truck up to your land, that puts the bees out, that
watches them. So, when these guys give anecdotal evidence about
what they are seeing, that is the essential common sense of the
matter and I think what it has caused us to wonder at Wyman's
is about the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
and the EPA that governs it, maybe we should review how the
practices are done. What they have observed does make you
wonder about the impact, the growing impact of our chemicals.
All of us are certainly motivated to use less and less
chemicals, both from our customer base and from our own cost
profiles, but we need some of them, yet then we listen to the
stories of these fellows and we think we have to step back and
take a look at the whole rulemaking process, I believe.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Davies Adams, the last person to come in on this
question.
Ms. Davies Adams. This will be a quick recap of answering
some of your questions. You asked about labeling. Yes, it is an
issue. We need to work on more effective, easier to read, and
easier to understand labels. We also need to think about
multiple exposures. This is part of what the reality of the
world is now. We need to also look at the mix and the
combination of chemicals which are creating exposures. We also
need to look at sublethal effects, which currently we don't
look at, that is an easy thing to add, and long-term effects.
Part of this is regulatory, part of this is monitoring, but we
also need to look at the applicator certification programs
state by state.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mendes, I have a couple questions for you. You make
reference to regulatory action in Germany and France. This is
sort of a follow-up on the pesticide question. You make
reference to regulatory action in Germany and France to
restrict certain systemic pesticides. It is my understanding
that European beekeepers are still suffering significant and
nearly the same losses, if not more, despite these regulatory
actions, and that the German decision was based on the action
of a type of European planting equipment on the seed coating
containing the pesticide rather than the misuse of the
pesticide itself, as we were talking about earlier. Do you have
any specific information on general health and condition of
European bees that you can help us with? It is my understanding
that there have been no specific reports of significant honey
bee incidents in the United States associated with the material
that is in question in Germany, which is, as I understand it,
clothianidin, which trade name is Poncho. So if you can------
Mr. Mendes. Sure. The situation in France was interesting.
I will try to do this briefly. They did pull one particular
product off for one particular crop. They couldn't use
imidacloprid on sunflowers. Well, what they replaced it with
was the same basic type of product so they said well, we pulled
the product and nothing improved but that really wasn't a step
ahead, and that is an ongoing issue.
The Chairman. You have to throw that question out is what
you are saying. You can't say that------
Mr. Mendes. Well, you pull the imidacloprid and you
replaced it with fipronil so they both have a similar mode of
action. So, to say why didn't it fix the problem, that is one
thing that you put another product that had a similar mode of
action. The second thing is, these products do stay in the
soil. We know they are persistent in the soil. I don't have to
say ``we think.'' We know they are persistent in the soil. Some
of our early information in looking at this issue came from
Canada, where they would use soil applications on potatoes.
Bees don't work potatoes at all. They would put a soil
application. The following year, they would rotate and put a
cover crop of clover, and the bees would die from the clover a
year later because this stuff stays in the soil for a long
time. We know it stays there for a long time. The residuals are
a big issue in all of this. Anything that is applied is there
for a long time, very different than contact killers that once
they are dry no longer are as much of a problem.
As far as in this country, Poncho is used. I don't believe
you cannot purchase any good quality corn seed in this country
that is not seed treated. The folks that are getting hit really
bad right now are in areas where there hasn't been corn
traditionally. They have bought either CRP land or land that
was on other crops to switch over to corn. This happened last
summer. In the fall, the bees are coming apart. So these
products are used here. It hasn't been documented because the
cause and effect isn't clearly understood. There are a lot of
beekeepers. This is not generally understood in the beekeeping
world. Dave Hackenberg and I have started right from the
beginning on this and we have done a lot of research, and I
would love to have the data to either prove or disprove. That
is really what we are asking is, give us the ability to collect
the data. If we are wrong, nobody is going to be happier than
us because this is such a big issue that it would be wonderful
if this was just a specific bee virus that is causing this
problem. We just don't see that happening.
And what I will add in, this is anecdotal but my own
experience and experience of several beekeepers is, you bring
your bees to an area where these products are being used.
Several months later, they are collapsing. The bees that you
left in the woods far away from those crops, they are just
fine, and this has happened for 2 years now. Anything that is
exposed, several months later, those bees are no good. The bees
that stayed away from it, same management practices, those are
fine. But you can't change regulation with that kind of
information.
The Chairman. Correct. I understand that. Thank you.
Let me follow up just briefly. Is there anyone here who
uses their bees to pollinate organic crops? There are two names
for this Committee. It is Horticulture and Organics. Organics
are a growing area. It would make sense if what you say is
correct that the organic fields wouldn't have the same cause.
Now, they could be next to a field that has some other products
so that can't be a direct necessary link but does anyone want
to speak to that question?
Mr. Mendes. Sure. I work with a couple of organic farms in
Florida that grow vegetables, but they are adjacent to orange
groves or something else where the bees are exposed and organic
agriculture in this country is in small pockets. It is not
widespread enough. And in my case, I pick up the bees and I
move them. I take them to blueberries, I take them to
cranberries, and so------
The Chairman. You can't speak to the specific exposures?
Mr. Mendes. No, not at all.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. That question didn't help us
very much then. Mr. Mendes, I am going to follow up with you
one more time, and that is, has the ABF conducted any
assessment of the potential effects on the recent floods in the
Midwest and the fires in the Southeast and in California, what
those calamities might mean to bee production and your
industry?
Mr. Mendes. Well, we are farmers. I mean, we are subject to
weather. Anybody who is in those areas certainly is devastated.
It is more common to have problems with drought. I mean, we
have had drought in several parts of the country for the last
couple of years, California last summer. I mean, any weather-
related incident is certainly going to affect beekeepers as
much as anything, so the floods, the droughts, whatever we have
is going to hurt things. The problem the industry is having is,
we are in a weakened position already, so any additional damage
is going to show up more.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Pien, can you tell us how your company began
identifying pollinator health as an economic issue rather than
simply as a marketing issue and that type of question?
Ms. Pien. Yes. We first discovered issues through reports
from The New York Times and CBS's 60 Minutes, and when we
learned that honey bees are responsible for one out of every 3
bites that the Americans take, we felt compelled to leverage
really the passion that consumers have for Haagen-Dazs ice
cream to help draw attention to this crisis. You know, as I
have spoken out, we did a survey and more than half of
Americans aren't even aware of the honey bee crisis, and given
that this crisis impacts every one of us who cares about the
food that we put into our mouths, we felt like this is an issue
that we had to get involved in and help address and proactively
take action towards.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Replogle, does your company own any of its own hives or
do you just purchase the products that you put into your own
products, purchase the ingredients, and how does your company
view its support for the Pollinator Partnership long term, and
what were the decisions that led you to support the program for
a second year?
Mr. Replogle. Very good question. Currently, we do not have
our own hives although our roots are from a beekeeper. Burt and
Roxanne, the founders of our company, Burt is a beekeeper. In
fact, I spoke to him on the way here this morning, and he is
very passionate about this issue, as a beekeeper would be, and
he believes that that has to be the force of business is to
protect well-being. Our company's mission is to make people's
lives better every day naturally, and this is a fundamental
issue that goes back to the roots of our business, back to Burt
as a beekeeper, and so today actually we source all of the bee
byproducts from others. We do not have any of our own hives
today but we are advised and guided by our legacy and by Burt,
who is and has been an active beekeeper.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Davies Adams, thank you for your testimony today. I
appreciate it. Can you tell us more about the process used by
the Pollinator Partnership in deciding which proposals are
funded?
Ms. Davies Adams. We have a Honey Bee Health Improvement
Committee that has a distinguished list of scientists, all of
whom are listed in my written testimony, but they include the
chair of the National Academy of Sciences study, May Barenbaum,
Nick Calderone, Gene Robinson, a number of distinguished
scientists who are already engaged, including ARS scientists.
We put a Request for Proposals out to the scientific community
and we received 22 proposals. We had a review committee
consisting of bee scientists who evaluated them and determined
a ranking for each of the proposals, and we then funded the
number of proposals that we had money for. Those that we
thought were extremely important and vital, we went out and
looked for money for and we actually received funding not just
from our corporate partners but from an oncologist in Vermont,
from a 4th-grade class in California. We have sought more
funding because there were so many proposals that we felt were
worthy.
The Chairman. It really is amazing, the passion, when you
talk about that 4th-grade class and others, the passion that
has been brought to this issue from the grassroots and just
concern by the public at large has been remarkable. I had
interviews with a number of news media groups from all other
the world including the BBC just last month, so I am very
familiar with what you speak.
That was my last question. I am going to turn it over now
to Mr. Etheridge, who has a series of questions. Mr. Etheridge,
the floor is yours.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me first
apologize to our panelists. I had a bill on the floor and I
couldn't be in two places at once, and we have a fairly
important piece of legislation dealing with the CFTC and all
the issues surrounding the issues we worry about today. So
thank you, and I am sorry I wasn't here, and if you have
answered any of these questions when I get to them, just let me
know and I will move to my next question.
Mr. Replogle, it really is good to see another North
Carolinian here today, so thank you for being here.
Mr. Replogle. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. And I would venture to say with 400 people
that drive in from a pretty good distance, and I would almost
guess some of them live in my district, so I am going to take
that as a yes anyway. But I don't think you mentioned this in
your testimony, but my question has to do with, has the CCD
problem and the shortage of bees that it is creating thus far
had an economic impact of significance on your business because
you indicated you have no bees but you buy your wax from
producers. So it stands to reason that you have a loss of hives
across the country. You have to be expanding your area of where
you are purchasing your materials.
Mr. Replogle. That is right. It goes back to simple supply
and demand. We have a demand for direct pollinated products.
Sixty percent of our products use ingredients that are linked
to pollination by bees and another 40 percent of our products
use direct byproduct, wax, beeswax or honey. And therefore our
supply being curtailed and as we heard today in testimony, the
crop yield shrinking or the ability to plant more crops being
impacted by the plight of the honey bee is certainly increasing
the cost of our raw material ingredients, our natural
ingredients. So far we have been successfully able to offset
those costs by efficiencies in our business, but along with
other price increases and cost increases in our business, it is
putting a strain on our business, on our well-being and on the
choices we make every day in terms of the well-being of our
employees. So to continue to thrive and grow in the Tarheel
State, we need to have a national solution to the honey bee
crisis so that further detriment to the crops, and therefore
the costs of doing business, not only for Burt's Bees but for
the $4 billion natural personal care industry and the wider $50
billion personal care business is not impacted.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. I think a lot of folks don't
really think about this sometimes. They think it is truly an
agricultural piece or a piece dealing with one segment but I
think your point and each one of you made this indirectly, we
are all linked together in this thing and it is more fragile
than we want to admit where we are on this planet and our food
supply is a part of that.
Mr. Godlin, we hear more and more and we have heard
testimony about how it is becoming imperative that bees have to
travel greater distances simply because of the problems we
face. My question to you is, not knowing a lot about it, can
you tell us how well bees adapt to the travel, and also both
moving from field to field and from, I guess at the same time,
from one part of the country to another, from one environment
to another, with humidity, high temperatures, cooler
temperatures, what kind of impact------
Mr. Godlin. It is a very precarious job. It is a very
precarious job. You have to have good operators. You know, we
contract all the interstate stuff from the Dakotas and
Minnesota. All those bees are hired trucks. We just run our own
trucks within the state, 22-foot flatbeds, and we move them at
night. You can't stop.
Mr. Etheridge. Why not?
Mr. Godlin. Well, the bees come home. The bees come home in
the evening every night. All the foragers come in, get into the
hives. You load them on the truck in the evening and move them
to where you are going to go and unload them in the morning or
in the middle of the night. It depends on the pressures to get
it done. And the interstate trucking is that you have to have
them netted and certain times of the year you can cook them.
You can literally cook these bees, just like cattle. You have
to------
Mr. Etheridge. Tell us what you mean when you say ``cook
them.''
Mr. Godlin. Kill them. Overheat. You have to hose them
down------
Mr. Etheridge. I understand that, but we have cameras in
the room and------
Mr. Godlin. You have to hose them down and keep them cold
and you have to run that truck all day long and fuel up at
night and you have to plan your stops. It is pretty much a 3-
day run, and you have to be diligent to do it right. You know,
I have heard horror stories of guys unhooking in Vegas and
taking off with the tractor and there sat the bees in the
parking lot, crazy stuff. But it is a dangerous, delicate job
that we just try to keep a low profile on. We don't want people
to know that when you are driving down I-5 through L.A. that,
you got a load of dynamite on your truck there.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Godlin. There you are.
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Edwards, let me also thank you for
taking time. I know how busy things are on the farm right now,
especially in North Carolina and I assume it is true in most of
the country. And I think we all know just how serious this
problem has become, and I don't think there is any question the
need for research is critical. I think this Committee knows
that and certainly the Chairman does and he has pushed hard for
it in the farm bill we passed and he is now talking about doing
more. I think that is appropriate, given where we are with this
situation. But you made a point I think we need to hear again
about helping out the beekeepers who are on the verge of going
out of business, because once they are gone, we are really
going to be in a bind. All of us are going to have a problem
because I don't think folks want to go out and do like we did
years ago with some commodities and actually pollinate them by
hand, and we still do that for seeds and others and I don't
think folks understand that. Aside from some type of crop
insurance for the beekeepers, what else do you think we can do
to better assist them beyond that and research? And also, are
you aware personally of any beekeepers certainly in your area
that you deal with that just aren't able to stay in business?
You talked about having cut your production in half. How many
other farmers that you are aware of in your region where an
awful lot of cucumbers are grown that just are cutting back?
Mr. Edwards. As far as the second question, as far as
beekeepers, a very long-time beekeeper and I think some of the
previous panel may have known him, will be quitting this year.
It has just gotten too tough and I think he has fought it a
little too long. It definitely is a labor of love to keep bees.
I can pretty much tell you that these guys are not doing it for
the money. So to me, they are very, very powerful ally. I know
we talked and focused on saving the bees when we really need to
be focused as well on saving the beekeeper. I think he is your
number one ally in this, or she is our number one ally in this
fight. They have been doing it long before it became popular.
So as far as how to go about that, that is a very good
question. Going from an idea to implementation is always a
challenge, but I am not sure about this new farm bill, but I
know in the previous one, a beekeeper, and I was talking with a
good friend of mine that does bees and asked. They were not
classified as a farmer in the Farm Service Agency so they had
no access to low-interest loans, which could be a good option,
or some type of insurance. They could not get any assistance.
Basically they were classified as a farm service provider and
not necessarily an agricultural producer or farmer, whichever
you want to call them. I don't know if that has changed in the
new legislation. So forgive me if I am wrong on that. But I
think we definitely need to be very proactive in helping these
guys out because they are definitely on the brink. Jeff Lee,
who supplies my bees out of Mevin, North Carolina, Jeff has a
Ph.D. in organic chemistry so he has done a total 180. He
worked for a large company in the realm of chemistry and he
just lost his job to outsourcing and became a beekeeper, but he
has his house mortgaged, his credit cards totally maxed out.
These guys are not doing it for the money. I mean, I don't
think anybody will put on a suit and go among 500,000 swarming
bees--I don't think they are doing it for the money. They have
to love it on some level and I think we need to--we can use
that passion that these guys have. I am not discounting the
university-level research. That is absolutely crucial to the
beekeeper and to the farmer, but I think we need to be very,
very aggressive in helping the beekeeper and do something as
quick as yesterday.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, sir. I would not want to go into
500,000 bees. I haven't done it recently. The last time we had
a bunch, we had them in our church and it took a while to get
them out. You know, they found a new home, and that was not an
easy process.
My final question, Mr. Edwards, and you mentioned this a
little bit in your testimony about cucumbers and where you had
one hive per acre, and now you have cut your acreage in half.
If someone else wants to comment on this, that would be fine
too, but have you had to increase or decrease the number of
hives per acreage, as an example, put out hives for an acre and
a quarter to an acre and a half? Do you know of anyone that
has, and if they have, what did that do for production?
Mr. Edwards. Well, I can tell you 10, 15 years ago, well,
15 years ago my father grew cucumbers and other guys, really,
pollinators were a way to enhance yield. It wasn't a necessary.
Today I don't plant cucumbers unless I definitely know I can
get the bees, because the native populations just aren't there.
We used to do a hive to 2 acres, maybe even more, maybe 3
acres. Now we are having to do a hive per acre because the
native bees aren't there, and if we don't have them there, it
causes yield problems, obviously, but the other thing it causes
is misshapen fruit, which we can't harvest.
Mr. Etheridge. Can you explain to folks what you mean by
that statement?
Mr. Edwards. If the pollination doesn't occur, and I am not
an entomologist, but if the pollination doesn't occur in a
timely fashion, our fruit set is very intense, very heavy in a
very short time period so if you don't have a lot of bees out
there really fast doing what they do best, it will cause
misshapen cucumbers, nubs, they are also called, and crooks
that can't be processed by the processing companies or the
consumers won't buy them. They won't fit in a jar, a host of
reasons why they are just not usable.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
this hearing and let me thank each of you again for coming, and
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. You have done a
great job as always.
I just want to make two observations as we close up today.
The first one is that if in fact you cut down on acreage, as
you have testified that you have done this year, there is a
significant result of that. Agriculture is a supply versus
demand commodity-driven, cost-driven industry, and when you
have less supply and you have the same demand, you are going to
have increased costs to the consumer, and so what the consumers
are already conveying to Members of Congress is that they are
concerned about their food prices going up. Well, based upon
the testimony that we have seen today, we are going to see
increased food prices because of the lack of pollinators.
The second point and one of the more globally concerning
points that I have heard continuously since we have been
researching this topic, is that the natural bees, the bees in
the wild that may have been pests to us when we were growing up
and we were kids walking in the woods and suddenly getting
stung have disappeared. That has got to give us all some
significant concern, not just for food production but what is
happening globally, and is there something that we don't
understand that we need to understand about our environment and
what is happening around us.
So both of those things are of great concern to this
Committee, to me personally, to Mr. Etheridge and all of us
concerned about this question, and I would just encourage the
researchers and the bureaucrats who have testified today, we
are all going to have to get busy and get to the point of what
is causing this before we have some calamitous effects that we
can't control.
So with that, I am going to end this hearing today. Thank
you all for being here. Thank you for your testimony. We have
some serious work to be done.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Material by Maryann T. Frazier, Senior Extension Associate,
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University
This was prepared and is being submitted in response to Chairman
Cardoza's request for specific information on what resources are needed
to address the issues of CCD and declining pollinator health in the
U.S. in a time critical manner over the next 12-18 months. While a core
team of scientists from multiple institutions and disciplines has
assembled and has sought funds to support research, the time critical
nature for a solution to this national emergency requires additional
personnel and resources to allow these scientists to have maximal
impact in the immediate timeframe.
Immediate objectives and needs (addressing the cause(s) of CCD; 6
months)
To complete pathogens and pesticides analyses of acquired samples
on current CCD projects (meeting Goals 1 and 2 in the action plan)
These samples come from 8 different studies or CCD field surveys
and also include a small number of beekeeper submitted samples. We
currently have a backlog of 4039 samples in storage and/or in the
process of being generated from on-going projects. Some of these will
be analyzed for pathogens and others for pesticides. The cost per
sample for pathogen analysis is $15. The cost for pesticide analysis
ranges from $95 to $259 depending on the hive matrix and residues being
tested for. We estimate that to complete the analyses of the remaining
samples will cost $250,000 beyond our current resources. The eight
studies include cooperative efforts by the working team to examine the
prevalence of pathogens across the U.S., the exposure of bees on
pollination contracts on the East Coast to pesticides and the effects
of gamma irradiation on pathogens and pesticides in comb from CCD
colonies. While we have not completed the analysis of all samples, the
results to date are being used to design and carryout hypothesis-driven
research to help reduce colony losses. Additional resources for these
analyses, would allow researchers to redirect current resources to
support these experiments.
Intermediate objectives and needs (addressing the cause(s) of CCD;
12-18 months)
While no one factor has been identified as the cause of CCD,
several key questions have been generated from the significant work
that has been done to date. Answering these critical questions is the
next logical step to identifying the cause(s) and potential cure(s) for
CCD. The research questions here represent current key areas of effort
by the CCD working team to identify the cause of CCD. However, the
resources currently available are inadequate to fully address these
questions in the identified timeframe. The following objectives and
resources are the best estimates of the CCD working team members to
increase their impacts. A similar analysis of the USDA CAP grant
multidisciplinary team could yield similar results, but were considered
beyond the time allotted for this response.
Key Areas of Investigation
(1) Pesticides
Are pesticides a key factor contributing to CCD and to pollinator
decline?
Key investigations
Conduct toxicity tests of individual pesticides and their
combinations to assess their causative association with CCD.
Determine sublethal effects of pesticides and selected
combinations of pesticides on physiological and behavioral
systems of insects, including immune system suppression,
interference with associative learning, and detection and/or
alteration of the chemical senses of honey bees.
Determine if adjuvants are toxic (compare toxicity of
formulated material to technical materials or active
ingredient.
Determine if pesticides in combination with other stressors
like IAPV are responsible for CCD
Determine if gamma radiation can be used to mitigate
pesticide build-up in bees wax comb and food
Key personnel (CCD working team)
Chris Mullin/James Frazier/ Maryann Frazier (PSU) Jeff Pettis
(USDA), Diana Cox-Foster (PSU) (second and last objective)
Current Funding
Most of this funding has been spent on CCD and beekeeper sample
analysis
Critical Issues; $89,000 (6/08-6/10)
NHB; $11,897 (2/1/08-12/31/08
Pending:
USDA-NRI 51.2B; $216,479 (1/1/09-12/31/10)
Protecting Honey Bee Pollinators, CAP; $90,000 to Mullin et al.
in yrs 3 and 4 (8/1/08-7/31/12)
Resources needed to address these questions:
Additional Personnel: $80,000
Operating Funds: $75,000
Total: $155,000
Investigation of pesticide involvement in bee declines requires use
of high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectroscopy (LC/
MS-MS) methods to successfully analyze samples for systemic pesticides
such as neonicotinoids and their metabolites at the sensitivity
required for FDA/EPA compliance. LC/MS-MS analytical capability is
particularly essential for understanding honey bee health in regards to
systemic insecticides, since honey or pollen contaminated with
neonicotinoids at ppb levels are known to impair bees. Multiresidue
pesticide and toxic metabolite analysis that requires LC/MS-MS
instrumentation is expensive, and the available analytical labs
routinely analyzing neonicotinoid residues under good laboratory
practices using LC/MS-MS is severely limited. Moreover, the
infrastructure for graduate education of pesticide analytical chemists
in the U.S., where there is sufficient equipment and expertise to
address the fate and ecotoxicology of systemic pesticides, is almost
non-existent.
Equip a MS facility with LC/MS-MS, GC-MS, workstation with
deconvolution software and toxic substance libraries; salaried for a
qualified GLP technician for 4 years: $1,500,000.
(2) Pathogens
Pathogens are clearly part of the problem underlying CCD. Increased
pathogen loads are found in colonies undergoing CCD and suffering
collapse. Recently, we identified a virus that appears to have been
introduced into the U.S. within the last 8 years; the Israeli Acute
Paralysis virus (IAPV) is not extensively found in samples collected
across the U.S. in 2004 and has only been found in one sample collected
in 2002. This virus was a good predictor of CCD by itself and in
combination with three other pathogens (Nosema ceranae, Nosema apis,
and Kashmir bee virus) it is a 100% predictor of CCD. At least two
strains of IAPV are found in the United States and data indicate that
the virus has greater variation than other bee viruses. How this
variation in the virus is linked to CCD is not known. Current studies
in containment greenhouses indicate that this is a fairly virulent
virus; however, in the field, we have evidence that additional stress
is needed to trigger the collapse. It is critical to identify these
stressors and to learn how the diseases progress in the colony with
CCD. In addition, we now have extensive evidence that these viral
diseases not only are infecting the honey bee but also native
pollinators. It is critical to learn how these diseases are impacting
the native pollinators and if these diseases are contributing to the
overall decline in native pollinators.
Another essential component that is critically needed is the
ability to effectively analyze the pathogens present in samples.
Currently, few labs in the U.S. are able to detect these pathogens and
none have the capacity to analyze increased numbers of samples from
beekeepers, state apiarists or even from APHIS collections. In
particular, individual beekeeping operations have requested analysis of
pathogens in their colonies and have found these services greatly
limited. Currently, discussions are being held on how the diagnosis of
bee pathogens can be added to the National Plant Diagnostic Network
portfolio. The NPDN has a regional distribution across the U.S. and the
capacity to handle large numbers of samples. New detection methods are
also needed that are faster and more sensitive across several
magnitudes and that can identify known pathogens and parasites.
Key investigations
Do different strains of IAPV have different virulences?
How do stresses such as sub-lethal pesticide exposure affect
the disease status of a colony?
What is the impact of the honey bee viruses and other
pathogens on native pollinators?
How can the NPDN portfolio and capacity be increased to
detect bee and pollinator diseases?
What measures can be taken to decrease the overall disease
prevalence in a colony and increase colony health and strength?
Key personnel (CCD working team)
Diana Cox-Foster (PSU), Jeff Pettis/Judy Chen/Jay Evans (USDA),
Dennis vanEngelsdorp (PDA), Dave Tarpy (NC State), additional
university and USDA/ARS researchers
Current Funding--Cox-Foster
Penn Dept Ag.; $100,000 for viral work (through 7/09)
Critical Issues; $52,000 (end 12/2008)
Resources needed to address these questions
Additional Personnel: $80,000
Operating Funds: $75,000
Total: $155,000
Improved detection methods for known pathogens/parasites:
$500,000
Increased capacity of the NPDN--additional equipment,
materials, etc.: $1,000,000
National Survey of pathogens/parasites in honey bee colonies
and queen breeding operations (APHIS and Apiary Inspectors of
America): $2,400,000
(3) Genetic Diversity
What is the role of genetic diversity in the overall health of
colonies and the honey bee population?
Key investigations
Correlate queen mating frequency with the incidence and
prevalence of CCD and Nosema spp.
Compare the gene-expression levels of several important
antimicrobial peptides by larvae in response to disease
challenge and determine if genetic diversity within a queen's
brood influences the degree of immune response
Test a continuum of mating numbers by instrumentally
inseminated queens by inoculating full-sized field colonies
with disease to determine the minimum mating number of queens
by which they may gain health benefits from having their
colonies genetically diverse
Determine the physical health, insemination success, and
mating numbers of commercially produced queen bees to assess
the ``mating health'' and genetic diversity of the honey bee
stock in the U.S.
Quantify the level of genetic diversity in the feral honey
bee population, particularly in comparison to the managed
population
Determine if the non-managed honey bee population is
comprised of ``escaped swarms'' or is truly feral (i.e.,
survivor stock); if the latter, the feral population may serve
as an untapped resource for genetic diversity and disease
resistance in the managed population
Key personnel
David Tarpy & Deborah Delaney (North Carolina State
University), Dennis vanEnglesdorp (PDA), Jeff Pettis (USDA),
Jay Evans (USDA)
Current Funding
North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services,
Plant Industry Division, 2008-2009 (one year); ``Intracolony
dynamics of Nosema infection in honey bees''; $15,000
[terminates 05/30/09]
United States Department of Agriculture, Arthropod and Nematode
Biology and Management (A): Organismal and Population Biology,
2008-2010 (two years); ``The collection of non-managed honey
bee colonies from the southern United States: characterization
and quantification of genetic diversity in U.S. honey bee
populations'' (PD: D. Delaney); $125,000 [terminates 08/30/10]
United States Department of Agriculture, Arthropod and Nematode
Biology and Management (A): Organismal and Population Biology,
2007-2010 (three years); ``Assessing the mating health of
commercial honey bee queens''; $346,500 [terminates 07/31/10]
Resources Needed (recurring)
Additional Personnel: $75,000
Operating Funds: $50,000
Total: $125,000
Long-term objectives and needs (addressing CCD and declining
pollinator health; 2-5 years)
Provide additional funding aimed at understanding pollinator (honey
bees and native species) decline and improving pollinator health and
conservation in the form of competitive granting program (NRI, CSREES;
Critical Issues, CAP, PIPE). The PIPE program funding we recently
competed for has been ``suspended'' due to financial restraints.
Competitive funding programs like this are vital if researchers are to
respond in a time critical manner to emerging threats to our food
supply.
Availability of this funding would allow the attention of the wider
research community to be focused on improved pollinator health.