4 ms·

So was that the solution all along? Just breed more bees to replace the ones that die? If that's the case, it seems like a mountain was made out of a mole hil

So was that the solution all along? Just breed more bees to replace the ones that die? If that's the case, it seems like a mountain was made out of a mole hill in the media. I read multiple times that I may never eat a pollinated fruit or vegetable again.

rrss1122 11y ago
It really was. Colony collapse disorder was bad for the colonies and breeders that experienced it, yes. But the honeybee industry has been going strong, contradicting all the apocalyptic warnings.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  Doom sells. You will never sell any newspapers saying all flights landed safely.
Beltiras 11y ago
No, the article is just putting forth very misleading and cherry-picked data. It's a little bit amazing that he actually mentions splitting and higher hive count close to each other without realizing that this will not increase the pollinator count by twofold. A real beefarmer has a comment on the article that everyone should read, it's illuminating. """ Mr Ingraham---do not assume you can read a few papers on CCD and bees and make cogent, authoritative remarks in a newspaper piece----this piece fails miserably. I AM a beekeeper, in Los Angeles, using feral honey bees, making public presentations, teaching beekeeping and selling honey. I am going to fill in your ignorance here with a few salient points. Making splits causes a yield of TWO WEAK hives, which is not the same as having the vigorous, healthy original hive. And just so you know, the splits the commercial folks are making from the survivors of pesticide, fungicide, herbicide exposure on industrial crops are the already weakened colonies that happen to make it. So, the splits are not especially fated to thrive, either. Your little tables showing statistics does not tell the real story of the insults being suffered by ALL pollinators from monocrop, industrial agriculture. The typical Consumerist answer to a problem---"just buy more" bees and queens is not addressing the real problems which are decline in clean forage from toxic chemical exposure, lack of forage diversity, trucking bees all over the country, narrow in-bred genetics. The loss of all pollinators, as well as decline in overall ecosystem diversity from the same insults, is the REAL issue. Your piece is also old ground previously plowed over by that corporate apologist and booster at Forbes, Jon Entine, another geek behind a computer who writes about beekeeping with a singularly narrow and uniformed arrogance. Like your ballyhooed Tucker and Thurman, the "economists" (never far from pontificating for the beauties of the "free market") the people weighing in on the loss of pollinators and trying to urge us not to be concerned are akin to Climate Change denialists. """
- tptacek 11y ago
  This beekeeper's comment doesn't appear to contain any testable arguments. They don't like the fact that maintenance of honey bee stock will require aggressive colony creation, but they don't appear to have an argument to back that up that isn't essentially an appeal to the naturalist fallacy. This is also a beekeeper attempting to husband honey bees using feral bee populations, 98+% of which were annihilated by the varroa mite a long time ago (there are people who dispute whether "feral honey bees" really still exist at all in the US). I'm not especially moved by arguments that attempt to tar people asking reasonable questions about insects to climate change denialists.
  - stonemetal 11y ago
    It contains several testable points. Does splitting a hive create two weak hives? How do you characterize this weakness and do they recover from it? What is the genetic diversity of the bee population? Is it growing or shrinking? Toxic chemical free forage is it growing or shrinking? Forage diversity should also be easy to measure and track changes over time. Other than the personal attacks what did you find not testable?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  I'm not sure that comments from "beekeeper in Los Angeles" sprinkled with phrases like "corporate apologist" are especially authoritative either.
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    I'm more willing to listen to an anecdote from someone in the trenches than flimsy misrepresentations that are internally inconsistent.
droithomme 11y ago
Also, there are dozens of different pollinating species in north america which are doing fine and have been doing fine throughout all this since they were not subject to the same stressors as domestic european honey bees. For example, one factor is european honey bees have their honey taken by people and replaced with corn syrup, which does not contain the antibiotic elements they produce in their own honey that they eat themselves. The claims that pollination was going to stop and the world come to an end were entirely hysterical, political, and totally without basis in science. Just think about it. Consider tomatoes, a new world crop. How were they pollinated before the arrival of the european honey bee? The answer is they were pollinated by various north american pollinating insects, which has continued to this day. European honey bees are notable because they produce an especially large volume of honey which makes them a little more economically useful since they can contribute to two different revenue streams: honey and pollination services. Native american bees such as Melipona beecheii and Melipona yucatanica which produce honey produce it in smaller quantities. Both those species are domesticated and stingless and historically were kept as pets by native americans such as various Mayan tribes who used the honey, pollination for their own local use, and religious ceremonies. The reason they are not used in modern production is because of the quantity of honey, not because they can't produce it or don't pollinate.

rrss1122 11y ago

It really was. Colony collapse disorder was bad for the colonies and breeders that experienced it, yes. But the honeybee industry has been going strong, contradicting all the apocalyptic warnings.

happyscrappy 11y ago
Doom sells. You will never sell any newspapers saying all flights landed safely.

Beltiras 11y ago

No, the article is just putting forth very misleading and cherry-picked data. It's a little bit amazing that he actually mentions splitting and higher hive count close to each other without realizing that this will not increase the pollinator count by twofold. A real beefarmer has a comment on the article that everyone should read, it's illuminating. """ Mr Ingraham---do not assume you can read a few papers on CCD and bees and make cogent, authoritative remarks in a newspaper piece----this piece fails miserably. I AM a beekeeper, in Los Angeles, using feral honey bees, making public presentations, teaching beekeeping and selling honey. I am going to fill in your ignorance here with a few salient points. Making splits causes a yield of TWO WEAK hives, which is not the same as having the vigorous, healthy original hive. And just so you know, the splits the commercial folks are making from the survivors of pesticide, fungicide, herbicide exposure on industrial crops are the already weakened colonies that happen to make it. So, the splits are not especially fated to thrive, either. Your little tables showing statistics does not tell the real story of the insults being suffered by ALL pollinators from monocrop, industrial agriculture. The typical Consumerist answer to a problem---"just buy more" bees and queens is not addressing the real problems which are decline in clean forage from toxic chemical exposure, lack of forage diversity, trucking bees all over the country, narrow in-bred genetics. The loss of all pollinators, as well as decline in overall ecosystem diversity from the same insults, is the REAL issue. Your piece is also old ground previously plowed over by that corporate apologist and booster at Forbes, Jon Entine, another geek behind a computer who writes about beekeeping with a singularly narrow and uniformed arrogance. Like your ballyhooed Tucker and Thurman, the "economists" (never far from pontificating for the beauties of the "free market") the people weighing in on the loss of pollinators and trying to urge us not to be concerned are akin to Climate Change denialists. """

tptacek 11y ago
This beekeeper's comment doesn't appear to contain any testable arguments. They don't like the fact that maintenance of honey bee stock will require aggressive colony creation, but they don't appear to have an argument to back that up that isn't essentially an appeal to the naturalist fallacy. This is also a beekeeper attempting to husband honey bees using feral bee populations, 98+% of which were annihilated by the varroa mite a long time ago (there are people who dispute whether "feral honey bees" really still exist at all in the US). I'm not especially moved by arguments that attempt to tar people asking reasonable questions about insects to climate change denialists.
- stonemetal 11y ago
  It contains several testable points. Does splitting a hive create two weak hives? How do you characterize this weakness and do they recover from it? What is the genetic diversity of the bee population? Is it growing or shrinking? Toxic chemical free forage is it growing or shrinking? Forage diversity should also be easy to measure and track changes over time. Other than the personal attacks what did you find not testable?
tedunangst 11y ago
I'm not sure that comments from "beekeeper in Los Angeles" sprinkled with phrases like "corporate apologist" are especially authoritative either.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  I'm more willing to listen to an anecdote from someone in the trenches than flimsy misrepresentations that are internally inconsistent.

droithomme 11y ago

Also, there are dozens of different pollinating species in north america which are doing fine and have been doing fine throughout all this since they were not subject to the same stressors as domestic european honey bees. For example, one factor is european honey bees have their honey taken by people and replaced with corn syrup, which does not contain the antibiotic elements they produce in their own honey that they eat themselves. The claims that pollination was going to stop and the world come to an end were entirely hysterical, political, and totally without basis in science. Just think about it. Consider tomatoes, a new world crop. How were they pollinated before the arrival of the european honey bee? The answer is they were pollinated by various north american pollinating insects, which has continued to this day. European honey bees are notable because they produce an especially large volume of honey which makes them a little more economically useful since they can contribute to two different revenue streams: honey and pollination services. Native american bees such as Melipona beecheii and Melipona yucatanica which produce honey produce it in smaller quantities. Both those species are domesticated and stingless and historically were kept as pets by native americans such as various Mayan tribes who used the honey, pollination for their own local use, and religious ceremonies. The reason they are not used in modern production is because of the quantity of honey, not because they can't produce it or don't pollinate.