Richie Nimmo H U M a N I M A L I A 6:2 Richie  Nimmo     The   Bio-­‐‑Politics   of   Bees:   Industrial   Farming   and   Colony   Collapse  Disorder     You   will   probably   more   than   once   have   seen   her   fluttering   about   the   bushes,   in   a   deserted   corner   of   your   garden,  without   realising   that   you   were   carelessly   watching   the   venerable   ancestor   to   whom  we   probably   owe  most  of  our  flowers  and  fruits  (for  it   is  actually  estimated  that  more   than  a  hundred  thousand  varieties  of  plants  would  disappear   if   the  bees   did   not   visit   them),   and   possibly   even   our   civilisation,   for   in   these   mysteries   all   things   intertwine.    Maurice  Maeterlink,  The  Life  of  the  Bee   (1901):  317-­‐‑18         Many   have   argued   that   human   and   nonhuman   animals   share   profoundly   entangled   genealogies   and   histories   of   co-­‐‑ evolution  (Haraway;  Shepard).  This  is  certainly  true  of  humans  and  honeybees,  which   have  been  intimately  intertwined  for  much  of  human  history.  There  are  many  species  of   bees,  but  Apis  Mellifera   significant  presence    particularly   in  western  societies    at   least  since  ancient  Egypt   (Preston  8,  32;  Wilson  1).  Humans  have  shaped  and  reshaped  honeybees,  especially  in   the   modern   era,   through   selective   breeding,   intercontinental   transportation,   and   changing   beekeeping   practices;   but   bees   have   shaped   human   societies   perhaps  more   profoundly,   having   played   highly   significant   roles   in   human   food   production   and   material   culture,   as   reflected   in   the   exceptionally   rich   cultural   history   of   apian   discourse,   folklore,   and   symbolism   (Ransome;   Wilson).   Honeybees   have   also   been   important  actors  in  world-­‐‑historical  events  such  as  the  European  colonial  settling  of  the   Americas,   which   for   the   Native   Americans   was   synonymous   with   the   relentless      the   emergence  of  the  international  trade  in  sugar  and  the  dramatic  reduction  in   its  cost   in   the  first  half  of  the  19th  century,  honeybees  were  the  source  of  the  primary  sweetener  in   the   European   diet   (Wilson   160,   161,   165).  Meanwhile  mead    made   from   fermented   honey     was   the   staple   alcoholic   beverage  for  all   but   the  most  affluent,   being  much   cheaper  than  imported  wine,  which  was  the  main  alternative  (Preston  31;  Wilson  156-­‐‑ 160).  Beeswax,  with  its  unusually  high  melting  point,  was  vitally  important  for  making   candles,   a   key   source   of   artificial   light   in   the   pre-­‐‑industrial   age.   Although   today   the   importance   of   candles   has   been  diminished   by   electricity,   beeswax   is   still   used   as   an   ingredient   in   products   as   diverse   as   polishes,   electrical   transducers,   Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   2 and  cosmetics,  while   honey  continues   to   be   a   significant  commodity   and  is   now    alternative  to  sugar  (Preston  48-­‐‑49,  97).  Far  more   important   than  beeswax   and  honey  production,   though,   is   the  pivotal   role  of   bees   as   vectors  in  plant  pollination.       Though  other  species  such  as  bumblebees  also  contribute  to  pollination,  honeybees  are   particularly   industrious   pollinators.   It   is   estimated  that   at   least   a   third   of   the   food   consumed  globally  by  humans  depends  directly  upon  insect-­‐‑pollinated  plants,  and  that   another   third  relies  upon   insect-­‐‑pollinated  crops  at  some  stage   in   its  production,  with   honeybees   making   by   far   the   greatest   contribution   (Buchmann   and   Nabham).   This   makes  honeybees   a   vital   part   of   the   agricultural   economy,  with   the   annual  monetary   Salles,  Settele  et  al.).  Underpinning  their  agro-­‐‑economic  importance  is  the  role  of  bees  as   key  agents  of  ecosystem  fertility,  which  would  be  dramatically  curtailed  without  their   constant  labor.  Einstein  is  often  reputed  to  have  said  that  if  bees  were  to  disappear  from   the  Earth,  then  humans  would  have  only  4  years  left  (Benjamin  and  McCallum  7).  The   veracity  of  this  attribution   is  very  doubtful,  but   its  persistence  since  the  middle  of  the   twentieth  century  underlines  the  popularity  of  the  notion  that  bees  serve  as  something   like   a   canary   in   the   coalmine   for   the   overall   health   of   the   eco-­‐‑system.   This   is   not   a   baseless  idea,  as  few  species  are  quite  so  sensitively  calibrated  to  their  environment  as   bees,  as  indicated  by  the  use  of  the  substances  that  accumulate  in  their  pollen  and  nectar   -­‐‑ Stone).  This   in  turn  helps  to  explain  why  the  rapid  decline  in  honeybees  has  caused  such  alarm,  not   only   amongst   apiarists   and   entomologists,   but   also   among   environmentalists,   governments,  and  scientific  institutions.  As  Claire  Preston  elegantly  puts  it:       Bees  stand  for  the  difference  between  the  life  and  death  of  our  species  and   of  our  planet,  as  agricultural  pollinators,  as  producers  of  food  and  light,  as   handmaidens  of  the  wild  vegetation  without  which  our  landscapes  would   be  eroded,  barren  and  empty  of  wildlife,  and  by  whose  efforts  our  soil   is   fertile.  (163-­‐‑165)     working  group  at  Pennsylvania  State  University  engaged  in  researching  the  causes  of  a   spate   of   particularly   dramatic   honeybee   losses   amongst   US   beekeepers   that   autumn   (Cox-­‐‑Foster,   Frazier,   Ostiguy   et   al.).   It   was   intended   to   refer   to   the   phenomenon   of   sudden,   dramatic,   and   unexplained   losses   of   honeybee   colonies,   in   many   cases   involving  the  overnight  disappearance  of  vast  numbers  of  bees  with  hardly  a  trace.  The   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   3 apocalyptic   overtones   of   the   new   term   caught   the   public   imagination   and   quickly   became  ubiquitous  in  media  reports,  firstly  in  the  US  and  then  worldwide,  so  that  CCD   came   to   be  widely   perceived   as   a   new,   unprecedented,   and   urgent   crisis   not   only   of   honeybees   but   of   pollination   itself,   and   therefore   of   agriculture   and   food   production   (Williams,  Tarpy,  vanEngelsdorp  et  al.).  In  fact,  it  is  doubtful  whether  CCD  was  as  new   and  unheralded  a  phenomenon  as  was  widely  assumed;  though  colony  losses  in  the  US   showed   a  marked   acceleration   from   2006-­‐‑7,   many   beekeepers   in   France   had   become   convinced   a   decade   earlier   that   the   worsening   trend   of   honeybee   losses   already   observable   at   that   time  was   linked   to   the   introduct name   for   products   manufactured   by   the   German   agrochemical   company   Bayer   containing   Imidacloprid     amongst   the   most   widely   used   of   the   class   of   systemic   pesticides   known   as   neonicotinoids   (Jacobsen   90-­‐‑93).   The   decade-­‐‑long   struggle   of   French  beekeepers  against  neonicotinoids  was  effectively  internationalized  by  the  surge   in  publicity  surrounding  the  appearance  in  the  US  in  2006-­‐‑7  of  what  began  to  be  called       CCD  has   since   been   at   the   center   of   a   fierce   international   debate   among   beekeepers,   farmers,   pesticide   companies,   green   groups,   and   entomologists,   with   different   interested   parties   preferring   different   potential   explanations   for   the   collapse   in   bee   numbers.  Candidates  for  a  cause  include:  the  rapid  global  proliferation  of  the  parasitic   Varroa  mite  and  associated  viruses  introduced  into  previously  unexposed  and  therefore   highly   vulnerable   honeybee   populations   by   migratory   beekeeping   and   the   transcontinental   trade   in   bees;   loss   of   genetic   diversity   due   to   the   poor   breeding   practices   perpetuated   by   some   commercial   breeders   and   the   crowding-­‐‑out   of   native   pollinators;   intensive  use  of  honeybees   in  commercial  migratory  pollination   involving   the   long-­‐‑distance   transportation   of   bees   and   leading   to   intolerable   stresses   on   the   species;   the   effects   of   the   increasingly   frequent   unseasonal   weather   associated   with   climate  change  on   the  reproductive  and  foraging  cycles  of  bee  colonies;  and  changing   agricultural   landscapes   involving   the   loss   of   areas   of   diverse   flora,   such   as   the   wildflower  meadows  vital  in  sustaining  native  bee  populations  (vanEngelsdorp,  Evans,   Saegerman,  et  al.;  Williams,  Tarpy,  vanEnglesdorp,  et  al.  846).  So  far  none  of  these  has   emerged   as   an   exclusive   or   undisputed   causal   explanation   for   CCD,   and   there   is   a   growing   view   among   entomologists   that   all   or   many   of   these   factors   in   complex   interaction  are  likely  to  be  contributors  to  the  phenomenon  (Neumann  &  Carreck  1-­‐‑6).     Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   4 The   case   against   neonicotinoids   as   a   likely   principal   cause  was   nevertheless   deemed   sufficiently  compelling  for  the  European  Union  to   impose  a  moratorium  on  the  use  of   neonicotinoid  pesticides  for   two  years   from  April   2013,   pending   further   research   into   their  effects  (EU  Regulation  485/2013).  This  was  the  culmination  of  more  than  a  decade   of  campaigning  by  French  beekeepers  together  with  an  array  of    assorted  environmental   organizations  from  across  the  EU  and  beyond,  who  are  convinced  that  neonicotinoids   are  the  primary  cause  of  the  rapid  decline  in  honeybee  colonies  seen  around  the  world   since  at  least  the  1990s,  and  accelerating  since  2006-­‐‑7.  Although  the  moratorium  was  a   significant  victory  for  the  beekeepers  and  their  allies,  it  is  set  to  expire  in  December  2015   and  has  already  been  subjected  to  vigorous  legal  challenge  by  pesticide  companies,  with   the  scientific  evidence  on  both  sides  being  fiercely  and  continuously  contested  (Maxim   &   van   der   Sluijs;   Schmuck).   Colony   Collapse   Disorder   then   constitutes   an   animal-­‐‑ technocultural   assemblage   of   formidable   complexity,   surrounded   by   considerable   controversy.       An  Animal-­‐‑Industrial  Complex?  A  promising  approach  to  such  assemblages  might  be   derived  from  the  work  of  scholars  in  the  tradition  of  critical  animal  studies,  who  have   -­‐‑industrial   com -­‐‑39;   Adams;   Twine).   This   emphasizes   the   political-­‐‑economic   processes   that   underpin   changing  organizational  forms,  technologies,  and  practices  in  industrialized  farming  or   -­‐‑animal-­‐‑technological   assemblages   to  be  grasped  critically  as  moments  of  wider  structural  relations.  From  this  perspective,   -­‐‑increasing   interpenetration   of   agriculture,   advanced   technology,   banking   interests   and   critical   animal   studies   work   is   a   strand   of   liberationist   thinking   on   human-­‐‑animal   relations   that   regards  all  human   relations  with  domesticated  animals   as  by  definition   relations  of  ownership,  domination,  and  exploitation,  which  vary  only  in  the  degree  of   mastery   or   control   exercised   over   the   animal   (Clutton-­‐‑Brock).   The   concept   of   the   -­‐‑ -­‐‑59)   and   extends  its  logic  into  the  critical  analysis  of  agribusiness,  focusing  in  particular  upon  the   structural  transformation  of  animal  farming  since  the  mid-­‐‑20th  century.  Thus  political-­‐‑ economic  processes  of  concentration  and  monopolization  are  shown  to  be  intrinsically   co systems  (Winders  and  Nibert).       Conceptions  of  the  animal-­‐‑industrial  complex  have  been  informed  by  Marxist,  feminist,   and,   to   a   lesser   extent,   Foucauldian   theory   concerning   the   interface   between   the   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   5 economic,   the   political,   and   the   technological.   Thus   technology   is   conceived   as   a   materialization  and  mediation  of  social  relations,  most  crucially  relations  of  power  and   domination.   Numerous   scholars   have   shown   how   critical   theories   of   capitalist   and   disciplinary   technologies   need   not   be   restricted   to   the   analysis   of   relations   between   human   beings,   but   are   highly   applicable   to   the   intensive   animal   production   systems   characteristic   of   contemporary   agribusiness.   From   hog   production   in   intensive   confinement   systems   (Novek),   to   computerized   and   mechanized   dairy   production   (Holloway;  Stewart  et  al.),  to  mechanized  and  automated  slaughter  (Adams  62-­‐‑63),  the   role  of  technology  in  industrialized  animal  agriculture  is  grasped  as  a  means  to  enable   in  the  interests  of  increased  productivity,  efficiency,  and  profitability.  The  apparatus  of   intensive   animal   production   systems   can   thus   be   understood   as   assemblages   of   nonhuman  bodies.  There   are   indeed   striking  parallels  between   the   control   systems  of   industrial   animal   farming   and   the   logic   of   Taylorism   and   scientific   management   as   strategies   of   increasing   control   over   the   laboring   human   body   within   capitalist   production  processes   in  order   to   facilitate  higher   rates  of   exploitation.  Barbara  Noske   a valorized   output:       interaction  and  contact  with   the  natural  environment   is  almost   felt   to  be   subversive:   much   anima better  still,  done  away  with.  All  animal  activity  must  be  directed  towards   cheap  and  rapid  production  of  human-­‐‑wanted  things.  (15)     The  model  for  such  intensive  animal  production  systems  and  the  clearest  expression  of   their   logic   is   often   taken   to   be   the   slaughterhouse.   It   is   significant   that   Henry   Ford   obtained   the   idea   for   his   assembly   line   method   of   production   from   a   visit   to   the   slaughterhouses   of   Chicago,   where   he   observed   the   progressive   dismemberment   of   animal  carcasses  in  a  series  of  distinct  operations,  carried  out  by  workers  who  remained   stationary  whilst  the  carcasses  were  moved  from  one  operation  to  the  next  via  a  system   of  aeria its   logic   in   what   became   the   assembly   line   model   of   mass   automobile   production   Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   6 (Adams   63;   Rifkin   119-­‐‑120).   Carol   Adams   suggests   that   this   historical   intersection   of   animal  slaughter  and  capitalist  production  is  not   just  historical  but  structural,  arguing   capitalism   as   modern   capitalism   is   a   construct   built   on   dismemberment   and   In   the   slaughterhouse   this   process   of   fragmentation   is   fundamentally   a   process   of   transforming   living   subjects   into   economically   valorized   objects.       Even  where  the  actual  death  of  the  animal  is  not  the  primary  output  or  product  of  the   industrial  process,  as  in  intensive  egg  or  milk  production  for  example,  the  process  can   still   be   grasped   as   one   of   objectification   and   de-­‐‑animalization,   in   which   the   specific,   irreducible,  and  qualitative  animal  is  made  absent,  rendered  non-­‐‑specific  and  fungible,   a   living  obj s   mechanistic  materialism.  Central   to   this   transformation   is   the  work  of   translating   the   animal  subject  into  a  series  of  quantitative  measures.  As  Hugo  Reinert  puts  it:     Within   the   agroindustrial   processing   apparatus,   distinguishing   traits   for   these     are   given   as   measurable:   processed   animals   are   specified   in   terms   of   quantifiable   attributes   such   as   age,   gender,   size,   lifespan,   growth   rate,   feed-­‐‑to-­‐‑weight   rations,   fertility,   offspring   survival   rates,  productivity  and  meat  yield.  (46)     Critical   animal   studies   approaches   are   thus   underpinned   by   a   trenchant   critique   of   objectification,   reflecting   a   widespread   tendency   to   ground   the   critique   of   particular   forms  of  human-­‐‑animal  relations  in  an  ethico-­‐‑political  affirmation  of  the  subjectivity  of   nonhuman  animals  as  conscious,   social,  and  minded   individuals   (Arluke  and  Sanders   42-­‐‑48;  Irvine).  As  a  critical  strategy  this  undoubtedly  has  many  strengths,  not  least  that   it  is  able  to  draw  upon  the  rhetorical  power  of  a  potent  blend  of  animal  rights  discourse   with   feminist   critiques   of   objectification   and   Marxist   critiques   of   alienation   and   exploitation,   all   of  which  presuppose   an   affirmation  of   the   subject.   But   this   approach   loses  much  of  its  cogency  when  the  animals  in  question  are  quintessentially  collective  in   their   species-­‐‑being,   in   their   whole   mode   of   existence,   and   when   an   assertion   of   the   subject   status   of   individual   animals   cannot   therefore  hold   as   the  persuasive   center   of   critique,   and   begins   to   look   inappropriately   anthropomorphic   or   even  Neo-­‐‑Cartesian   (Plumwood  152-­‐‑153).     Any  critique  of  apiculture  rooted  in  a  condemnation  of  the  objectification  of  bees  means   understanding  bees  as  subjects   in  the  first  place,  equivalent   in  essence  to  cows,  sheep,   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   7 pigs,  and  indeed  humans.  This  would  seem  risible  to  many,  and  not  in  this  instance  due   to   any   knee-­‐‑jerk   anthropocentrism,   but   because   it   neglects   the   biosocial   specificity   of   Apis  Mellifera  in  an  attempt  to  assimilate  the  species  to  a  ready-­‐‑made  critique  conceived   almost   entirely   in   reference   to   vertebrates,   and   predominantly  mammals.   It   is   not   of   course   that   honeybees   are   unique   in   being   social   creatures    many  mammalian   and   non-­‐‑mammalian   species   are   social,   and   just   as   with   humans   this   does   not   rule   out   acknowledging   their   individual   subjectivity,  which   is   intimately   bound  up  with   their   social  existence  and  not  the  opposite.  But  the  sociality  of  bees  is  qualitatively  different,   consisting  not  of  subject  relations  between  anatomically  similar  individuals,  but  of  the   sort   of   absolute   biologically   embedded   collectivism   that   has   led   to   serious   scientific   -­‐‑ is,  where  the  colony  itself  is  considered  the  organism  rather  than  the  individual  bees  it   comprises  (Tautz),  as  well  as  centuries  of  cultural  imaginings  concerning  the  nature  of    and  apian  social  organization  (Wilson  106-­‐‑139).       nicely   sums   up   the   highly   asymmetrical   relationship   between   the   individual   and   the     or   most   thoroughly   social     form   of   sociality   recognized   by   sociobiologists  and  others  who  study  nonhuman  social  organization.  It  is  relatively  rare,   with  most  social  animals  exhibiting  a  lesser  degree  of  sociality.  Eusociality  is  defined  by   several   characteristics,   including:   socialized   care   for   of -­‐‑existence   of   multiple   generations   of   adults   within   a   colony;   and   a   division   of   labor   between   specialized   behavioral   ularly   distinctive   aspect   of   eusociality   is   that   individuals   in   one   caste   will   lose   one   or   more   of   the   biological   capacities   of   the   individuals   in   another   caste   during   their   development,   so   that   the   fferentiated   anatomical   development   of   the   component   individuals,   such   that   the   interdependence   of   the   various  groups  comprising  the  colony  is  absolute.       of   the   colony.   The   queen   is   produced   by   the   workers   through   the   feeding   of   high   quantities  of  royal   jelly  to  a  selected  larva,  and  thus  becomes  far   larger  than  the  other   bees  and  the  only  reproductively  viable  female  in  the  colony.  The  queen  and  colony  are   then  able  collectively  to  determine  the  proportion  of  female  workers  and  male  drones   Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   8 amongst  the  brood,  depending  upon  the  age  of  the  current  queen;  the  female  workers   develop   from   fertilized  eggs  whereas   the  male  drones  develop   from  unfertilized  eggs   and   are   also   fed   differently   by   the   workers.   Drones   do   not   forage,   make   honey,   or   participate  in  the  maintenance  of  the  hive,  their  sole  function  being  to  mate  with  a  new   queen  in  the  event  of  the  colony  swarming.  The  female  worker  bees  perform  the  entire   labor   of   the   colony   and   are   differentiated   into   age-­‐‑based   castes   with   different   roles,   including:   brood-­‐‑care   and   feeding;   maintenance   of   the   hive   including   honeycomb   construction  and  clearing  out  dead  bees  and  any  failed  larvae;  attending  to  the  queen;   carrying  water   into   the  colony   to  help   to  maintain   the  right   temperature;  making  and   storing  honey;  guarding  against  invaders;  and  finally  foraging  for  pollen  to  feed  to  the   larvae   and   nectar   to   turn   into   honey.   Thus   honeybee   colonies   manifest   remarkably   complex  social  organization,  which  is  accomplished  not  by  large  individual  brains  but   by  biochemical  mechanisms  such  as  differential  pheromone  secretion  to  distinguish  one   caste   from   another;   hence   all   of   the   complexity   remains   at   the   collective   level,   the   individuals  being  mere   instruments  of  the  collective   intelligence  of  the  colony.  That   is   therefore   highly   problematic   to   assimilate   the   ultra-­‐‑sociality   of   bees   to   the   inter-­‐‑ subjective  models  of  sociality  that  underpin  critiques  of  objectification.       The  Industrialization  of  Bees.  The  commercial  use  of  honeybees  primarily  as  providers   ergone  a  marked  process  of  concentration  paralleling   the  development  of  agribusiness  more  widely,  with  the  rise   in  recent  decades  of   large   commercial   pollination   operations   geared   towards   fulfilling   the   pollination   requirements  of  very  large-­‐‑scale  monocultures.  This  is  at  its  most  dramatic  in  the  central   Californian  almond  industry,  where  60  million  almond  trees  planted  in  grids  of  uniform   almonds  (Singeli;  Traynor).  The  precipitous  rise  in  global  demand  for  almonds  since  the   1990s   has   driven   the   move   towards   large-­‐‑scale   intensive   monoculture,   as   almond   farmers   have   sought   to   capitalize   upon   rising   prices.   This   in   turn   has   fuelled   a   huge   demand  for  pollination,  massively  outstripping  the  existing  pollination  capacity  of  local   pollinators,   and   leading   to   heavy   reliance   upon   long-­‐‑range   migratory   commercial   pollination,  with  millions  of  hives  being  trucked  in  from  across  the  US  and  even  flown   in  from  Australia.  The  scale  of  the  demand  does  not   just  reflect  the  enormous  scale  of   almond   production   but   is   magnified   by   the   specific   pollination   requirements   of   almonds,   combined  with   the   particular   rationale   of   intensive   production   (McGregor).   With  many  fruits,   such  as  peaches  or  apples,   it   is   the   fruits   themselves   that  are  eaten,   and  they  therefore  cannot  be  grown  too  densely,  as  this  will  tend  to  prevent  a  yield  of   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   9 large   and   attractive   fruits.  With   almonds,   it   is   the   pits   that   are   eaten   and   a   larger   number  of  smaller  fruits  is  actually  desirable.  Thus,  rather  than  requiring  a  pollination   rate  of  around  10  percent  for  a  viable  crop,  with  almonds  almost  total  pollination  of  all   flowers   is   required   (Singeli;   Traynor).   Moreover,   almonds   are   cross-­‐‑pollinating,   meaning  that  pollen  from  the  flower  of  one  almond  tree  cannot  pollinate  another  flower   on  the  same  tree  or  even  a  tree  with  the  same  genetics;  for  pollination  to  occur  the  bee   must  visit   a   flower  of  a  different  variety  of  almond   tree  whilst   still   carrying   the  alien   pollen,  before  it  returns  to  the  hive.       This  would  not  be  a  problem  under  normal  conditions  of  bio-­‐‑diversity  where  a  variety   of   types   of   trees   is   likely   to   be   growing   in   proximity.   Under   conditions   of   intensive   monoculture,  however,  where  the  trees  are  essentially  clones  and  nothing  else  is  grown   for   thousands   of   acres,   it   is   a   significant   logistical   challenge.   Consequently,   almond   farmers  must  grow  at  least  two  varieties  of  almond  trees,  which  are  usually  arranged  in   alternate   rows.   Even   then   this   is   a   very   inefficient   trajectory   for   a   bee,   whose   sole   concern  is  to  gather  nectar,  and  bees  will  usually  prefer  the  next  nearest  flower,  which   tends  to  be  on  the  same  tree.  Bees  will  only  visit  other  trees  before  returning  to  the  hive    for  each  flower  that  they  are  forced  to   look  slightly   further  afield   for  nectar.  These   factors   in  combination  mean  that  almond   orchards  must  be  super-­‐‑saturated  with  bees    at  a  level  of  around  2  hives  per  acre    in   order  to  achieve  commercially  optimal  levels  of  pollination,  resulting  in  around  1  and  a   half   million   hives   being   trucked   into   the   Californian   almond   orchards   each   fruiting   season  (McGregor;  Traynor;  Singeli).     Almond  production   is   the  most  dramatic   case   of   an   intensive   industrial  monoculture   reliant  upon  commercial  apiculture  for  its  viability,  but  it  is  far  from  the  only  example.   The   unrelenting   logic   of   rationalization   and   intensification   is   driving   many   other   branches  of  agriculture  towards  this  model,  which  is  in  turn  driving  the  transformation   of   apiculture   along   similar   lines.   Increasingly,   beekeepers   are   turning   away   from   relying   principally   on   honey   production   supplemented   by   occasional   commercial   pollination,  and  toward  a  focus  on  pollination  as  by  far  the  main  part  of  their  business.   Though   it   is   most   advanced   in   the   US,   this   trend   is   global   in   scope;   large-­‐‑scale   monocultural   agricultural   systems   around   the   world   are   increasingly   and   (Aizen  &  Harder  915 18).       Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   10 Moreover,  the  forms  of   intensive  monoculture  that  underpin  the  growth  of  large-­‐‑scale   commercial   apiculture   would   be   unthinkable   without   the   extensive   use   of   agrochemicals.   The   rapid  growth  of   agricultural   productivity   since   the   1950s  owes   as   much  to  the  increasing  use  of  fertilizers,  pesticides,  herbicides,  fumigants,  biocides,  and   insecticides   as   it   does   to   mechanization   and   the   development   of   new   agricultural   enabled   agricultural   productivity   to   be   raised   well   beyond   the   levels   that   would   otherwise   be   achievable.   Indeed,   the   practices   of   late   modern   agriculture   are   so   thoroughly  permeated  with  chemicals  that  the  large  agrochemical  corporations  must  be   considered   key   political-­‐‑economic   agents   in   the   agro-­‐‑industrial   complex,   with   a   structural  role  comparable  to  that  of  the  major  food-­‐‑producing  multinationals.  But  just   as   the   benefits   of   agrochemicals   to   farming   productivity   and   profitability   are   well   known,   the   evidence   of   detrimental   and   escalating   environmental   consequences   has   Silent  Spring,  which  detailed  the   severe  bio-­‐‑diversity  and  habitat   losses  associated  with  the  growing  agricultural  use  of   highly  bio-­‐‑toxic  organophosphate  pesticides.       The   development   of   the   neonicotinoid   class   of   pesticides   was   hailed   as   a   significant   breakthrough,   offering   a   far   less   toxic   alternative   to   organophosphates,  which  would   achieve   similar   results   through   a   different   and   more   targeted   mechanism,   thereby   reducing  the  undesirable  impact  upon  non-­‐‑targeted  organisms  in  the  eco-­‐‑system.  Bees,   in   common   with   all   insects,   were   known   to   have   been   highly   vulnerable   to   organophosphates,   but   were   supposed   to   be   relatively   protected   from   exposure   to   and  repeatedly  over  crops,  but  instead  can  be  used  more  selectively,  often  to  treat  seeds   before  planting,  because   they  are   taken  up  by   the  plant  and  become  sealed  within   its   cells.   In   theory   this  enables  neonicotinoids   to  effectively  repel   the   insects   that   feed  on   the  crops  without  harming  other  organisms  in  the  environment.  Mammals  in  particular   are   believed   to   be   less   susceptible   to   toxic   effects   from   neonicotinoids   than   from   the   literature  was  as  follows:     We  have   to  protect   the   insects   that  help  us  while  getting   rid  of   the  ones   evelop  insecticides   that   are   safe   when   used   responsibly   and   correctly,   and   which   do   not   comply   with   the   tenets   of   integrated   pest   management.   They   can   be   applied   multiple   times   and   even   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   11 important   tool   in   sustainable   agriculture.   (http://www.cropscience.bayer.   com/en/Products-­‐‑and-­‐‑Innovation/Brands/Insecticides.aspx)     -­‐‑vaunted  precision  of  neonicotinoids  has   proved   far   more   unpredictable   when   taken   out   of   the   controlled   environments   of   selective  testing  and  unleashed  upon  the  formidable  complexity  of  the  real  environment   (Suryanarayanan).   Industry-­‐‑sponsored   tests  of   the  effects  of  neonicotinoids  upon  bees   conducted   prior   to   their   mass   commercial   release   have   been   shown   by   subsequent   independent   research   to   have   been  woefully   inadequate,   focusing   almost   exclusively   upon  establishing  lethal  doses,  with  very  little  consideration  of  the  longer-­‐‑term  effects   of   cumulative   sub-­‐‑lethal   doses   (Maxim   and   van   der   Sluijs).   Moreover,   only   a   very   narrow   range   of   standard   routes   of   exposure   were   considered,   which   failed   to   take   account   of   the  possibility   of   exposure   through  dust,   nectar,   and  pollen.   There   is   now   growing   evidence   that   under   certain   conditions   neonicotinoids   can   become   concentrated   in   pollen   at   far   higher   levels   than  were   anticipated   or   claimed   in   initial   tests,  and  that  prolonged  and  cumulative  exposure  to  neonicotinoids  through  multiple   routes   of   exposure   results   in   symptoms   of   acute   nervous system   confusion,   such   as   failure  to  return  to  the  hive,  as  well  as  damage  to  the  immune  systems  of  bees,  both  of   which  are  closely  associated  with  Colony  Collapse  Disorder  (Goulson  983-­‐‑984).       It   might   reasonably   be   concluded   that   banning   or   severely   restricting   the   use   of   neonicotinoid   pesticides   represents   an   efficient   and   effective   single   solution   to   CCD.   that   has   proliferated   since   2007.   But   a   singular   focus   upon   neonicotinoids   fails   to   acknowledge   the   full   socio-­‐‑ecological   significance   of   CCD   and   overlooks   the   longer-­‐‑ term   problem   of   pollinator   decline.   Indeed,   the   popular   understanding   of   CCD   as   a    western  honeybee  as  given  and  thus   fails  to  properly  address  the  decline  of  native  bees  and  the  many  other  pollinators  that   performed   the   work   of   pollination   perfectly   adequately   prior   to   the   globalization   of   Apis  Mellifera  and  the  industrialization  of  agriculture  (Buchmann  &  Nabham).  The  irony   is   that   the   international  proliferation  of   the  honeybee   is   intricately  bound  up  with   the   forms  of  agricultural  organization  that  have  not  only  led  to  the  steady  decline  of  native   bees   and   other   pollinators,   but   have   also   engendered   the   very   practices   of   intensification  which  meant  that  it  was  only  a  matter  of  time  before  something  like  CCD   developed.  Thus  the  crisis  of  the  honeybee  is  really  a  crisis  of  the  current  agro-­‐‑industrial   food  system  at  large      a  system  so  heavily  reliant  upon  industrially  ratcheting  up  the   Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   12 pollination  work  of   a   single   species   is   patently  unbalanced,   lacking   in   resilience,   and   unsustainable.       Bio-­‐‑Power  and  Resistance.   -­‐‑ industrial   comp reconceive   the   factory   farm  as   a   technopolitical   apparatus   of  disciplinary  power   over   vital   processes,   rather   than   as   a   system   of   domination   over   individual   nonhuman   subjects  as  such.  What  is  common  to  factory  farming  and  intensive  apiculture,  from  this   point   of   view,   is   not   the   objectification   or   exploitation   of   subjects   but   the   material   friction  between,  on   the  one  hand,   living  organisms  and  vital  systems  with   their  own   complex  rhythms  and  systems  of  bodily,  behavioral,  and  ecological  self-­‐‑regulation,  and   on   the   other   hand   industrialism,   understood   as   the   systematic   application   of   instrumental   and   calculative   rationality   to   the   organization   of   production   in   order   to   maximize   productivit complex   situations   and   systems   specialised   and   instrumentally-­‐‑directed   forms   of       The  subordination  of   living  processes  to  the   instrumental  calculus  of  productivity  can   be  grasped  as  a  form  of  biopower.  This  Foucauldian  concept  has  already  been  extended   in  a  posthumanist  direction,  such  as  to  encompass  disciplinary  power  over  nonhuman   as   well   as   human   life,   by   a   number   of   animal   studies   and   posthumanist   scholars   (Agamben;   Stanescu;   Novek   233-­‐‑ prescribed   and   desirable   ways,   and   the   sovereign   power   of   killing     the   power   of   lly  in  the  slaughterhouse    turns   out   to   be   a  moment   of   this   wider   biopolitics,   since   a   corollary   of   power   over   life   is   power  over  dying.  Thus  both   the   factory   farm  and   the   industrial  monoculture   can  be   comprehended  as  technologies  of  biopower,  enacting  the  disciplinary  subordination  of   life   to  capital  accumulation  via  the  systematic  application  of  mechanistic  rationality  to   vital  processes.       As  scholars  in  critical  environmental  sociology  have  long  pointed  out,  complex  natural   systems   and   processes   are   amenable   to   only   so   much   human   manipulation   and   intensification  before  they  tend  to  reach  some  sort  of  critical  tipping  point,  giving  rise  to   any  number  of  unforeseen  consequences  (Catton  and  Dunlap;  Benton;  Dickens  100-­‐‑103,   115).   Thus   there   is   causal   force   on   both   sides,   with   bios   always   retaining   some   irreducible  particularity,   some   internal   rhythm  or   self-­‐‑regulating  dynamic   that   cannot   be  eradicated  by  the  disciplinary  apparatuses  of   industrial  technoscience  but  at  best   is   Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   13 displaced  and  suppressed,  to  emerge  again  in  some  other  form.  Jane  Bennett  articulates       the  will   and  designs   of   humans  but   also   to   act   as   quasi-­‐‑agents   or   forces   with  trajectories,  propensities  or  tendencies  of  their  own.  (viii)       Thus  whilst  biopower  is  totalizing  it  never  achieves  totality,  for  if  discipline  is  endlessly   innovative,   then   life   is   irrepressibly   recalcitrant;  wherever   there   is   biopower,   there   is   bio-­‐‑resistance.   This   is   present   at   every   level   from   the   micro-­‐‑organismic,   to   the   behavioral,  to  the  ecological,  flowing  from  one  nodal  moment  to  another  and  expressing   itself  wherever  there  is  an  element  left  undisciplined  and  uncontrolled.  Like  a  liquid  it   seeps   through   the   tiniest   cracks   in   the   edifice   of   power,  meeting   the  microphysics   of   domination  with  a  microbiotics  of  resistance.       The   spiraling   technocultural   arms   race   that   results   lies  behind   such  practices   as  mass   feeding  with   antibiotics,   tail   docking,  debeaking,   individual   confinement,   and   indeed   the  escalating  use  of  agrochemicals,  all  of  which  can  be  understood  as  the  ramping  up   of  technologies  of  control  in  response  to  the  unintended  consequences  of  earlier  control   measures.  The   suppress   the   tendency   of   living   things   in   particular   to   resist   their   complete   instrumentalization  and  machine-­‐‑like  functional  use.  This  is  not  of  course  resistance  in   any  conscious  or  purposive  sense,  which   is   to  say  in  the  humanist  sense  of  resistance,   but   rather   the   resistance  of  material   recalcitrance,  of  entropy,  and  of  a   chaos  which   is   such  obduracy,  each  technological  fix   is  temporary,  as  the  recalcitrance  of  bios  forever   re-­‐‑emerges   in   new   and   unanticipated   manifestations.   Indeed   the   severity   of   the   unintended  consequences  often  parallel  the  ambitiousness  of  the  control  measures,  such   that   there   is   a   marked   tendency   for   forms   of   entropy   to   set   in   and   for   biological   processes   to   break  down  precisely  when   they   are  most   fiercely   instrumentalized   and   when   every   conceivable   variable   appears   to   have   been   reckoned   back   into   the   disciplinary   technology.   This   is   frequently   manifest   as   disease   and   contagion     principal  antagonists  of  the  bio-­‐‑political  logic  of  containment  and  separation    such  as   in  outbreaks  of  BSE,  avian  and  swine  flu,  as  well  as  the  rise  of  antibiotic  resistance,  all  of   which  have  been  connected  with  the  practices  of  intensive  animal  farming.       Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   14 In  the  factory  farm  it   is  animal  bodies  that  are  the  object  of  bio-­‐‑power,  and  which  are   progressively   removed   from   the   natural   environment   and   into   highly   regulated   artificial   enclosures.   In   industrial   monoculture   it   is   the   environment   itself   that   is   the   object   of   bio-­‐‑power,   encompassing   the   complex   ecological   interrelationships   among   multiple   entities   including   plants,   animals,   insects,   the  material   qualities   of   soil,   and   myriad  micro-­‐‑organisms.  Though  the  objective   is   the  same     to   increase  productivity    the  technological  dimensions  are  somewhat  different.  In  the  factory  farm  most  of  the   variables  at  play  are  amenable  to  a  relatively  high  degree  of  technoscientific  control,  in   the   field   far   less   so.   It   follows   that   there   is   a   correspondingly   greater   possibility   of   unintended  consequences   resulting   from  any  given   technological   intervention.  As  Val   regard   for   effects   on   larger   self-­‐‑ Indeed,   if  both  forms  of   intensive  farming  can  be  understood  as  factory  systems,   they   might  also  be  grasped  heuristically  as  ongoing  biopolitical  experiments,  the  one  under   laboratory-­‐‑like   conditions,   the   other   in   the   field,   where   the   parameters   of   the   experiment   are   harder   to   control,   its   limits   less   sharply   defined,   and   the   variables   at   play  highly  unpredictable  and  open-­‐‑ended.       Conclusion.  This  article  has  explored  the  possibilities  of  an  analysis  of  apiculture   that   -­‐‑ animal  agriculture,  assessing  its  usefulness  and  limits  as  a  framework  for  grasping  the   specific  animal-­‐‑technocultural  assemblage  of  contemporary  apiculture,  and  developing   -­‐‑ the  phenomenon  of  Colony  Collapse  Disorder.       The  paradigmatic  site  of  human-­‐‑ -­‐‑industrial   complex understood   through   the   terms   of   a   critique   of   the   slaughterhouse   as   a   site   of   mechanized   and   routinized   objectification.   Such   a   critical   strategy   demands   the   acknowledgement   of   nonhuman   animal   subjectivity,   mindedness,   and   individuality,   which   then   becomes   the   basis   for   an   ethico-­‐‑political   critique   of   objectification.  Whilst   acknowledging   its   potency,   I   have   argued   that   this   mode   of   critique   was   conceived   principally   in   reference   to   the   mammalian   and   avian   animals   that   make   up   most   honeybees.   It   was   argued   however   that   -­‐‑ might  yet  be  coherent,  if  the  model  of  the  factory  farm  is  reconceived  in  such  a  way  as   to  displace  the  centrality  of  the  subject  in  the  analysis.     Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   15 Rethinking   the   critical-­‐‑animal   account   of   the   factory   farm   requires   re-­‐‑examining   the   model   of   the   slaughterhouse   as   the   paradigmatic   site   for   the   systematic   negation   of   subjectivity,   the   transformation  of   living  animal   subjects   into  dead   commodities.  This   model   reinforces   a   view   of   the   factory   farm   as   a  machine   for   the   negation   of   living   subjects,  quite  literally  a  killing  machine  or  technology  of  death.  But  placed  in  the  wider   context   of   other   forms   of   animal   farming,   the   thanatopolitics   of   the   mechanized   slaughterhouse  looks  less  like  the  paradigmatic  model  for  animal  production  and  more   like   a   supplementary  moment   in  a  more   encompassing  biop understood,  the  core  processes  of  the   factory   farm  are  not  built  upon   the   sovereign  power  of  killing   subjects,   but  upon   the   disciplinary   subordination   of   living  materials   and   vital   systems   in   such   a   way   as   to   render  them  maximally  productive.  This  points  to  a  rather  different  sort  of  tension,  not   another  variant  of  the  subject/object  divide,  but  a  messy  and  material  friction  between   the   dominant   technoculture   of   capitalist   modernity   and   the   complex   ecologically-­‐‑ embedded  rhythms  and  processes  of  living  systems  which  provide  both  its  object  and   its  rapidly  deteriorating  conditions  of  possibility.     Situating   Colony   Collapse   Disorder   within   a   biopolitical   reading   of   intensive   animal   production  systems  in  this  way  avoids  too  narrow  a  focus  upon  specific  practices  which    however  significant    are  no  more  than  elements  of  this  complex  and  reflections  of   its   essential   logic,   such   as   widespread   pesticide   usage   or   migratory   commercial   pollination.  That   is  not   to  minimize   the   role  of  neonicotinoids  and  other  pesticides   in   pollinator   decline,   but   it   recognizes   their   embeddedness   within   the   self-­‐‑escalating   material   contradiction   between   a   technoculture   bent   upon   seeking   the   increased   productivity  of  living  systems  in  accordance  with  the  logic  of  industrial  capital,  and  the   unreflexive,   unconscious,   but   irrepressible   resistance   to   this   that   inheres   in   every   particle  of  those  biomaterial  systems.  Honeybees  thus  emerge  not  simply  as  objectified   and   exploited   nonhuman   subjects,   but   as   vital   nodes   in   a   complex   techno-­‐‑ecological   assemblage     highly   vulnerable   to   the   agrochemical   technologies   pervasive   in   industrial  farming,  but  also  technologies  themselves,  and  indispensable  components  of   the   monocultural   systems   of   agricultural   production   that   increasingly   dominate   the   world  food  system.             Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   16 Works  Cited       Adams,   Carol   J.   -­‐‑Industrial   Complex:   An   Eco-­‐‑ Organization  and  Environment  10.1  (1997):  26 51.       _____.  The  Sexual  Politics  of  Meat:  A  Feminist-­‐‑Vegetarian  Critical  Theory.  1990.  New  York:   Continuum,  2000.     Agamben,  Giorgio.  The  Open:  Man  and  Animal.  Stanford:  Stanford  UP,  2010.       Aizen,   M.   A.,   s   is   Current  Biology  19   (2009):   915-­‐‑918.     Arluke,  Arnold,   and  Clinton  R.   Sanders.  Regarding  Animals.   Philadelphia:  Temple  UP,   1996.     Bayer   CropScience:   www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Products-­‐‑and-­‐‑Innovation/Brands/   Insecticides.aspx.  Web.  6  February  2015.     Benjamin,   Allison,   and   Brian   McCallum.   A   World   Without   Bees.   London:   Guardian   Books,  2009  .       Bennett,  Jane.  Vibrant  Matter:  A  Political  Ecology  of  Things.  Durham,  NC:  Duke  UP,  2010.     Benton  Ted.  Natural  Relations:  Ecology,  Animal  Rights  and  Social   Justice.   London:  Verso,   1993.     Buchmann,  Stephen  L.,  and  Gary  Paul  Nabham.  The  Forgotten  Pollinators.  Washington,   DC:  Island  Press,  1997.       Carson,  Rachel.  Silent  Spring.  New  York:  Houghton  Mifflin,  1962.     -­‐‑Exuberant   American  Behavioral  Scientist  24  (1980):  15-­‐‑47.       Clutton-­‐‑Brock,   J.  The  Walking  Larder:  Patterns  of  Domestication,  Pastoralism  and  Predation.   London:  Unwin  Hyman,  1989.     Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   17   Cox-­‐‑ group.  State  College:  Pennsylvania  State  University,  2007.     Dickens,   Peter.   Society   and   Nature:   Changing   our   Environment,   Changing   Ourselves.   Cambridge:  Polity,  2004.     European   Union   Regulation   485/2013,   24   May   2013,   amending   Implementing   Regulation   (EU)   No   540/2011,   as   regards   the   conditions   of   approval   of   the   active   substances  clothianidin,   thiamethoxam  and   imidacloprid,  and  prohibiting   the  use  and   sale  of  seeds  treated  with  plant  protection  products  containing  those  active  substances.   Official  Journal  of  the  European  Union.  L139:  12-­‐‑26.       Fudge,  Erica.  Animal.  London:  Reaktion  Books,  2002.       Ecological   Economics  68.3  (2009):  810-­‐‑821.     Goulson,   D.   Journal  of  Applied  Ecology  50  (2013):  977-­‐‑987.       Haraway,  Donna.  The  Companion  Species  Manifesto:  Dogs,  People  and  Significant  Otherness.   Chicago:  Prickly  Paradigm  Press,  2003.     Environment  and  Planning  D:  Society  and  Space  25.6  (2007):  1041-­‐‑1060.     Hurn,   Samantha.  Humans  and  Other  Animals:  Cross-­‐‑Cultural  Perspectives  on  Humans  and   Other  Animals.  London:  Pluto  Press,  2012.     Irvine,  Leslie.  If  You  Tame  Me:  Understanding  our  Connections  with  Animals.  Philadelphia:   Temple  UP,  2004.       Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   18 Jacobsen,  Rowan.  Fruitless  Fall:  The  Collapse  of  the  Honey  Bee  and  the  Coming  Agricultural   Crisis.  New  York:  Bloomsbury,  2008.     Maeterlinck,  Maurice.  The  Life  of  the  Bee.  Tr.  Alfred  Sutro.  London:  George  Allen,  1901.     -­‐‑ European  Environment  Agency  Report  No.1/2013.  Late  Lessons  From  Early  Warnings:  Science,   Precaution,  Innovation.  European  Environment  Agency,  2013.  369-­‐‑406.     McGregor,   S.   E.   Insect  Pollination  of  Cultivated  Crop  Plants.   Agriculture  Handbook  No.   496.  Washington,  DC:  US  Government  Printing  Office,  1976.       Journal   of   Apicultural   Research  49  (2010):  1 6.       Noske,   Barbara.  Beyond  Boundaries:  Humans  and  Animals.   1989.  New  York:   Black   Rose   Books,  1997.       People:   Sociological  Perspectives  on   the  Discipline  of  Animals   in   Society  and  Animals  13.3  (2005):  221-­‐‑244.       Preston,  Claire.  Bee.  London:  Reaktion  Books,  2006.     Plumwood,   Val.   Environmental   Culture:   The   Ecological   Crisis   of   Reason.   London:   Routledge,  2002.       Ransome,   Hilda   M.   The   Sacred   Bee   in   Ancient   Times   and   Folklore.   1937.   Mineola,   NY:   Dover  Publications,  2004.       Society  and  Animals   22   (2014):  42-­‐‑56.       Rifkin,  J.  Beyond  Beef:  The  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Cattle  Culture.  New  York:  Penguin,  1992.     European   Environment   Agency   Report   No.1/2013.   Late   Lessons   From   Early   Warnings:   Science,   Precaution,   Innovation.   European   Environment   Agency,  2013.  401-­‐‑402.     Richie Nimmo The Bio-Politics of Bees: Industrial F arming and Colony Collapse Disorder   19   Shepard,  Paul.  The  Others:  How  Animals  Made  us  Human.  Washington,  DC:  Island  Press,   1996.     San  Francisco  Chronicle.  SFGate.com.  14  October   2007.  Web.  22  February  2015.     PhaenEx  8.2  (2013):  135-­‐‑60.     Addre Sociologia  Ruralis  53.2  (2013):  201-­‐‑222.       PRI  12  Jul  2011.  Web.  6   22  February  2015.     Suryanarayanan,   S.   s   of   Insects  4.1  (2013):  153-­‐‑167.       Tautz,   Jürgen.  The  Buzz   about  Bees:  Biology  of   a  Superorganism.   Berlin:   Springer-­‐‑Verlag,   2008.       Traynor,  J.  Almond  Pollination  Handbook.  Bakersfield:  Kovak  Books,  1993.     -­‐‑ Journal  for  Critical  Animal  Studies  10.1  (2012):  12 39.     VanEngelsdorp  D.,  et  al.   PLoS  ONE   4.8  (2009):  e6481.     Williams,   G.   R.,   et   al.   Bioessays   32.10   (2010):   845 846.       Wilson,  Bee.  The  Hive:  The  Story  of  the  Honeybee  and  Us.  London:  John  Murray,  2004.     Humanimalia:  a  journal  of  human/animal  interface  studies   Volume  6,  Number  2  (Spring  2015)   20 tion   (2004):  76-­‐‑96.