4 ms·
Because more beehives are needed to keep up with the demand as bees die?
by spraak 10y ago
Because more beehives are needed to keep up with the demand as bees die?
- tptacek 10y agoThe introduction of neonicotinoids corresponds with an increase in the number of active hives, to record numbers in some areas (like Canada). The number of honeybee colonies in the US (where honeybees are livestock, not an indigenous species) is up since the announcement of CCD in 2006. Colonies are down since around 1990, when wild honeybees were wiped out by the varroa mite --- which mites remain the biggest stressor of honeybee colonies in the US.
- unclebucknasty 10y agoAre you saying that neonicotinoids are causing an increase in active hive numbers? I'm guessing that's not your assertion. But, of course, the argument you appear to be making is just as invalid.
- levbrie 10y agoI believe the assertion is that in order to maintain the bee population at the level necessary to meet demands on agriculture given the extraordinary rise in the death rate of both individual bees and entire colonies, the beekeeping industry has had to import far more colonies per year.
- tptacek 10y agoThat doesn't make sense. Again: active colonies, not the number imported. Literally: there are more live bees in the US post-neonicotinoid.
- cmrdporcupine 10y agoActive colonies != total bee population. If the mortality rate is high, then you need more colonies with reproducing bees in them to maintain the population at a certain level.
- tptacek 10y agoCan you please cite the source that shows total bee population declining as number of active colonies increases?
- smallnamespace 10y agohttps://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43191.pdf https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43191.pdf Page 10 “Long-term population trends for the honey bee, the most important managed pollinator, are demonstrably downward.”
- tptacek 10y agoCite the whole context of that quote! They're referring to trends since the 1940s. The varroa mite literally wiped out the feral honeybee population in the US. There are no more North American feral honeybees! Of course the long-term population trend is downward!
- smallnamespace 10y agoI'm not an academic researcher so I don't have the raw data that you want, but I think it's worth not missing the forest for the trees. Bee populations have been demonstrably stressed for a very long time, and CCD and other more recent developments are yet another sign. The need for beekeepers to aggressively split hives is a sign that things are going very badly for them, even if we manage to raise the number of colonies in the short term. Note that there are plenty of other parts of our ecosystem that show signs of severe stress as well (e.g. amphibians, coral reefs, etc.); we may very well reach a tipping point where large swaths of various food chains catastrophically collapse.
- tptacek 10y agoI'm sorry, but respectfully, you've provided neither forest nor trees. I'm not an academic researcher either, but I feel as if I'm one of the few people on this thread that has heard of a varroa mite, or knows apis mellifera's actual role in the North American ecosystem. All I did was look stuff up. Can't everyone else do the same thing? The 2006 date cited for CCD isn't the government acknowledging CCD. It's the first published reports of CCD in commercial colonies. It's not a giant conspiracy. It's also worth knowing that overwintering losses stabilized after 2006, and commercial populations hit record numbers afterwards. Clearly, there are bee stressors other than "colony collapse disorder". But beepocolypse advocates use the term "CCD" as a cudgel in any discussion about stressors or population losses. No, can't do that. I don't need perfect data. Any data will do.
- hristov 10y agoIf you have signed a pollination contract to provide 100 beehives for a commercial orchard and your colonies keep dying then in order to be sure you can perform your contract and not incur damages, you will make sure you have more than 100 beehives in order to allow for colony collapse. Similarly if you are making honey. If you have the right to make honey over an area that will support 100 beehives but you know that 20 of them are going to die, ten you will put in 120 beehives. Commercial beekeepers know how to create new colonies by artificially triggering the split/swarming process. Thus, the logical response of commercial beekeepers to the colony collapse disorder is to keep extra colonies around. It makes complete sense. Unfortunately, I doubt a similar adaptation is happening in the wild. We are losing wild pollinators and that may have all kinds of negative effects on the ecosystem.
- tptacek 10y agoWhich wild pollinators are we losing?
- smallnamespace 10y agoWild bees, for one.
- jly 10y agoI don't think you read the linked article. It deals with only wild bee species and their decline.
- tptacek 10y agoNo, I'm suggesting there may be no causal link at all.
- unclebucknasty 10y agoBut your argument essentially posits that there is a link in the other direction. That is, since bee populations are on the rise, neonics are not harmful to them. You could just as easily draw the conclusion that neonics are helping bees. Neither conclusion is valid.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]