7 ms·

I’m not really sure yet how I feel about this particular case of temporary emergency authorization (which is omitted from the title). I get the chemicals were b

by 40four 6y ago

I’m not really sure yet how I feel about this particular case of temporary emergency authorization (which is omitted from the title). I get the chemicals were banned for good reason, but in this case they are trying to prevent a whole commodity sector from collapsing. Tough situation to be in. The larger issue to me is how warped the debate around saving bees and pollinators has become. I get very frustrated every time I read articles on this topic, because I feel like the way it is presented is very misleading. It’s always presented in a way that makes it seem like these large farms are dependent on ‘wild’ bees and pollinators. They make it sound like the only thing that matters is our use of evil chemicals, and if you support their use the. You are a piece of shit who doesn’t care about the earth. In reality, large commercial mono crop farms depend on bee keepers who provide their hives as a service. Their bees are the ones dying en mass, not wild bee populations. You’re not going to find many wild bees or anything else for that matter in these areas, the biome doesn’t support them. Mono-croping as a practice is an environmental disaster just by it’s nature. There is no biodiversity by design. This in turn makes pests and diseases that harm the beehives brought in by beekeepers that much worse. Then of course, add large scale chemical application on top of that and we’ve created a huge mess. So really, when you see these articles claiming huge percentages of bees dying, they aren’t wrong. They are just being purposefully misleading about which bees are dying. It is the bees brought in by the “Beekeepers as a service”, not wild bees. As bad as that is, there is the good thing to remember. Those are ‘farmed’ bees. We can always farm more bees. That might be a hard challenge for the beekeepers, but it’s not the same thing as all the wild bees in the world dying and everyone starving to death. We need to stop confusing the topic with wild bees.

lwhi 6y ago
Both things could be true. Surely investment in monocrops is affecting wild bee population? If the pesticides affect farmed bee populations, why shouldn't they in term have the same affect on wild bees? Isn't their physiology going to be the same (or very similar)? I don't understand what you're trying to say?
- 40four 6y ago
  I think you're right, both things are certainly true. I might have gotten a little lost in my angry rant, but what I'm trying to say is many of these articles are not presenting the subject in a fair manner. If the pesticides harm the beekeepers bees, they are certainly hurting wild bees too. Collateral damage from farms is real, but the percentage of wild honey bees that come in contact with these farms has to be a small percentage. The fact that these farms destroyed the bee's (and every other animal's) natural habitat in the first place is never mentioned. It's as if they want these farms to continue to operate, but without any chemicals, which in reality is impossible. It would be best if we got all our food from small, diverse, organic farms but that's unfortunately not the system we have. I wish it was. Also, not once ever have I seen the history of honey bees explained. Everyone wants to cry over the 'wild' honey bees dying, meanwhile nobody mentions that they are not native to America. They were brought over by European settlers. So any 'wild' populations we have in America were artificially introduced, but they want everyone to think that it's natural and they have always been here. And they want you to think that all farms, no matter the size or type rely on 'wild' honey bees to pollinate their fields. It's unfortunate, but it's just not how out system works in the United States. So I'm trying to say I'm frustrated explaining this over and over to people that have been mislead by certain groups who only care about pushing their own agenda. If we want have a real conversation about bees, then you can't leave out the history of how they came here, and you can't leave out the large role commercial beekeepers play in our agricultural system.
alsetmusic 6y ago
I was with you for a lot of this post. However, I'm curious how one can say that "Beekeepers as a service" are harmed and not wild bees. How would wild bees be distinct from harm? It's not like a virus that harms humans distinguishes populations. How does this harm one group and not the other?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- iguy 6y ago
  I think the complaint is that many of the dramatic bee-decline stories are, without mentioning it, just about rent-a-hive services. It seems dishonest to present as evidence of an environmental catastrophe a particular business problem. However, as you say, there are real concerns about wild insect declines, and the same chemicals surely kill both. These are what should get airtime.
- 40four 6y ago
  You're not wrong, but 'wild' honey bees in general aren't the ones being exposed to large commercial farms. Sure there is collateral damage, but that's not enough to endanger honey bees as a whole. It's also important to note that 'wild' honey bees in America are not native. They were brought over by European settlers, and the ones who leave the hive or get left behind have formed the populations we now call 'wild'. Maybe this article is doesn't apply since it pertains to the UK, and I'm not really familiar with the situation there. But my main point, is in regards to these articles you see all the time, that make it appear as if honey bees are on the verge of extinction. In regards to the USA, if you write an article about honey been dying, and you purposefully don't mention the history of how they arrived here in the first place, and purposefully don't explain the massive role commercial beekeepers play, it is not very helpful. It is clear they are serving their own agenda.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kurthr 6y ago
I see your position, and I agree that the problem is more complex than just pesticides are bad, but it's also more complex than saving sugar beets. If this were an invasive species (like murder hornets or malarial mosquitos) problem that could be stopped before it started or a temporary measure to prevent life and death (rather than wealth accumulation) for a significant number of people, I'd have more sympathy. Application to sugar beets is expected to increase crop yields 13% on a non-critical crop, for a commodity (sugar) that can be easily imported. The virus problem won't ever go away. So this just sounds like subsidizing a particular local agricultural industry, because it's having a hard time competing right now. Will that ever change, why not choose bees or wildflowers over sugar beet farmers? Is it just because they can pay for lobbyists or positive news coverage? Furthermore, it sounds an awful lot like the massive use of (the most advanced) anti-biotics in cattle feed lots to increase meat yield. That builds up immunity so that those last line of defense drugs are no longer useful to treat humans with deadly diseases. The key here is that there will be a state of permanent emergency where some new poison is always needed to keep profits at their previous artificially high level. If the local industry can't compete, and it's not necessary other than for a small group's continued profit, maybe it's time to move on. The alternative is a possibly long term loss of pollinators (because the insecticide goes down streams) and the development of stronger/larger reservoirs of mites, moths, molds that could permanently affect all pollinators in England.
- martinald 6y ago
  But what percentage of UK land is used for growing sugar beet? It must be a small fraction. How many bees are actually going to be in the vicinity of this? I can't see it being a large amount. Regarding "we can just import it", well yes, but if everyone took that opinion then there wouldn't be any farming anywhere eventually.
  - kurthr 6y ago
    Sugar beets are only grown where cane is not a viable crop, but end-end they are typically about 2-3x the cost of production. Beet sugar is an awful ecological and economic choice created by putting taxes on the importation of cane sugar. To the extent that it is pure sucrose (and I'm not aware of any alcohols made from beets like rum is from molasses) there isn't any difference in the product either. The US pioneered the protection of the sugar industry with >100% tariffs (EU has followed) and thus they have the world's largest sugar beet industry... for little political reason other than protectionism for a Florida (or German dominated) industry. don't know if you should trust this link, but it's a decent paper: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf p.s. The paper ends in the late 90s although little has changed other than the closing of the US cane industry in Hawaii.
GordonS 6y ago
I don't know where you're from, but for our US readers it might be worth pointing out that large farms in the UK are nowhere near the size of "large" farms in the US. I've also never heard of "bees as a service" here, though I know it exists in the US. For reference, I'm not a farmer, but live in the British countryside.
- monk_e_boy 6y ago
  Agree, never heard of bees as a service - also live in a farming community. We farm different crops here.
  - 40four 6y ago
    From the 'National Honey Board' website (USA) https://honey.com/newsroom/presskit/honey-industry-facts https://honey.com/newsroom/presskit/honey-industry-facts Many commercial beekeepers migrate their colonies during the year to provide pollination services to farmers and to reach the most abundant sources of nectar. Millions of acres of U.S. fruit, vegetable, oilseed and legume seed crops depend on insect pollination, including honey bees. The USDA has estimated that 80 percent of insect crop pollination is accomplished by honey bees. Approximately one-third of the total human diet is derived directly or indirectly from insect-pollinated plants (fruits, legumes and vegetables). Crop Dependence The almond crop is entirely dependent on honey bee pollination. Without honey bees, there would be no almonds. More than 80 percent of the world's almonds are produced in California.3 To pollinate California's approximately 790,000 bearing acres of almonds4 requires more than a million colonies of honey bees. Numerous other crops are 90 percent dependent on honey bee pollination. Some of those crops include apples, avocados, blueberries, cherries, cranberries and sunflowers. Other crops such as cucumbers, kiwi fruit, melons and vegetables are also pollinated by honey bees.*
    - GordonS 6y ago
      We're specifically discussing about the UK in this comment thread.
tchalla 6y ago
Monoculture is a high risk strategy for every facet of life - farms, investments, gene pools, markets etc. I feel you - I wish we talked about implications and made an explicit risk/reward trade off for any such decision.
- antihero 6y ago
  One could argue that this stems in fact from the division of labour itself.
stinos 6y ago
You make a very good point, but your post reads a bit too much like 'wild bees are fine'. I think you know what follows, but just for completeness and for other readers: they aren't, at all, just like insects in general (the numbers are so unbelievably insane I'm nog even going to look up the latest one but just say '70% decrease in the last couple of decades' and it will be ballpark correct, unfortunately). And unlike the domestic bees they cannot be bred (or at least not easily). Pesticides likely also play a role in there, small perhaps, habitat loss is estimated to be the main factor. Which mono-crops also is the key player in of course; not just because those fields are no habitat but also because upscaling leads to destroying the surroundings, and so on.
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  To the greater point of "insects," I was a child in the 80s. A road trip (driving in unpopulated areas) resulted in tons of bugs smacking the windshield, reducing visibility. That's much reduced.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That’s about 50/50 from better aerodynamics and fewer insects.
    - bergstromm466 6y ago
      Source?
  - saghm 6y ago
    I mean, all the bugs dying due to hitting windshields probably didn't help their population count...
- 40four 6y ago
  This is fair. I did not mean to suggest there are no issues with wild bee populations declining. There certainly are. Also it's important to note that anything we call a 'wild' honey bee now is just a descendant of a once 'domesticated' variety, originally brought over by European settlers. So if you trace it back far enough, protecting 'wild' bees is sort of funny since it is an 'artificial' element we introduced to our environment in the first place. My gripe is these articles like to quote decrease in numbers observed by commercial bee keepers. They mislead people into thinking these are the same numbers scientists are observing in the overall wild bee population. Again, in America, something we introduced in the first place. They were not native. I think it is important to understand that mono crop farms, with crops that depend on pollinators, work closely hand in hand with commercial bee keepers. I have never seen this explained to people by any of these articles, probably because it does not server their agenda. Collateral damage from mono-crop farming practices (destruction of habitat, mass chemical application) is a big problem, but not being honest about the the history, and purposely hiding the large role commercial beekeepers play is not helpful. https://honey.com/blog/honey-in-history-colonial-america https://honey.com/blog/honey-in-history-colonial-america
TeaDrunk 6y ago
Wild bee populations have also dropped like a stone and that is also worth worrying for.
Jefff8 6y ago
I don't think that brought in bee keeping exists very much in the UK. I live near the edge of fields, in a semi-rural setting. I've never seen it. I have see plenty of wild bees and bee hives.
dan-robertson 6y ago
The sugar beet farmers groups have been trying to get emergency authorisation ever since the pesticides were banned. I feel like it isn’t a sustainable situation and these farmers unions are either misleading or foolish if they believe these measures will be both temporary and successful. They also seem to have a weird line about the zeitgeist against refined sugar (maybe the article mentions this as a reference to honey but honey bees aren’t so badly affected by this chemical as bumble bees are) as if they are suggesting they aren’t producing refined sugar and that they are some important part of the future desired by the people who support the neonicotinoid ban.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  I think this is especially troublesome from the National Farmers Union. They were simultaneously campaigning publicly to keep EU standards (to protect their members from cheaper imports), whilst privately lobbying the government to lower standards. They have lost an awful lot of credibility with environmentalists over this. For a bit of added intrigue, cane sugar producers Tate & Lyle were major Brexit supporters in order to get tarrifs on cane sugar dropped.
simon1ltd 6y ago
I don’t think there’s a big difference between “wild” bees and the “domesticated” or farmed bees that you seem to believe exists. I’m in Ohio, and I’ve only been keeping bees for 3-4 years now, but I’ve attended lectures and talked to many longtime keepers in my area (Ohio). I specifically asked about wild bees, and the answer I got was unexpected, but made sense once it was explained to me. The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives. I can’t speak to anywhere else, but it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the wild and managed bees are essentially the same.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Beekeepers will go out and gather swarms or extract them from unwanted places if they know about them, and they have capacity. Beekeepers losing their hives drives up demand for harvesting wild ones. So even if that weren’t a two way street, the wild ones would still be under duress.
- saghm 6y ago
  > The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives. Not trying to discount this, as I know basically nothing about pesticides or bees, but doesn't this seem a little circular? The conclusion that the bees in the wild are heavily linked with our bees is based on the assumption that they were fairly similar in the first place, i.e. "there's no reason to believe the wild bees faired any differently". In other words, "the wild bees are doing about the same now because they did about the same before", but without any strong evidence that they did about the same in the first place. I assume I'm missing something?

by 40four 6y ago

lwhi 6y ago

Both things could be true. Surely investment in monocrops is affecting wild bee population? If the pesticides affect farmed bee populations, why shouldn't they in term have the same affect on wild bees? Isn't their physiology going to be the same (or very similar)? I don't understand what you're trying to say?

40four 6y ago
I think you're right, both things are certainly true. I might have gotten a little lost in my angry rant, but what I'm trying to say is many of these articles are not presenting the subject in a fair manner. If the pesticides harm the beekeepers bees, they are certainly hurting wild bees too. Collateral damage from farms is real, but the percentage of wild honey bees that come in contact with these farms has to be a small percentage. The fact that these farms destroyed the bee's (and every other animal's) natural habitat in the first place is never mentioned. It's as if they want these farms to continue to operate, but without any chemicals, which in reality is impossible. It would be best if we got all our food from small, diverse, organic farms but that's unfortunately not the system we have. I wish it was. Also, not once ever have I seen the history of honey bees explained. Everyone wants to cry over the 'wild' honey bees dying, meanwhile nobody mentions that they are not native to America. They were brought over by European settlers. So any 'wild' populations we have in America were artificially introduced, but they want everyone to think that it's natural and they have always been here. And they want you to think that all farms, no matter the size or type rely on 'wild' honey bees to pollinate their fields. It's unfortunate, but it's just not how out system works in the United States. So I'm trying to say I'm frustrated explaining this over and over to people that have been mislead by certain groups who only care about pushing their own agenda. If we want have a real conversation about bees, then you can't leave out the history of how they came here, and you can't leave out the large role commercial beekeepers play in our agricultural system.

alsetmusic 6y ago

I was with you for a lot of this post. However, I'm curious how one can say that "Beekeepers as a service" are harmed and not wild bees. How would wild bees be distinct from harm? It's not like a virus that harms humans distinguishes populations. How does this harm one group and not the other?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iguy 6y ago
I think the complaint is that many of the dramatic bee-decline stories are, without mentioning it, just about rent-a-hive services. It seems dishonest to present as evidence of an environmental catastrophe a particular business problem. However, as you say, there are real concerns about wild insect declines, and the same chemicals surely kill both. These are what should get airtime.
40four 6y ago
You're not wrong, but 'wild' honey bees in general aren't the ones being exposed to large commercial farms. Sure there is collateral damage, but that's not enough to endanger honey bees as a whole. It's also important to note that 'wild' honey bees in America are not native. They were brought over by European settlers, and the ones who leave the hive or get left behind have formed the populations we now call 'wild'. Maybe this article is doesn't apply since it pertains to the UK, and I'm not really familiar with the situation there. But my main point, is in regards to these articles you see all the time, that make it appear as if honey bees are on the verge of extinction. In regards to the USA, if you write an article about honey been dying, and you purposefully don't mention the history of how they arrived here in the first place, and purposefully don't explain the massive role commercial beekeepers play, it is not very helpful. It is clear they are serving their own agenda.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kurthr 6y ago

I see your position, and I agree that the problem is more complex than just pesticides are bad, but it's also more complex than saving sugar beets. If this were an invasive species (like murder hornets or malarial mosquitos) problem that could be stopped before it started or a temporary measure to prevent life and death (rather than wealth accumulation) for a significant number of people, I'd have more sympathy. Application to sugar beets is expected to increase crop yields 13% on a non-critical crop, for a commodity (sugar) that can be easily imported. The virus problem won't ever go away. So this just sounds like subsidizing a particular local agricultural industry, because it's having a hard time competing right now. Will that ever change, why not choose bees or wildflowers over sugar beet farmers? Is it just because they can pay for lobbyists or positive news coverage? Furthermore, it sounds an awful lot like the massive use of (the most advanced) anti-biotics in cattle feed lots to increase meat yield. That builds up immunity so that those last line of defense drugs are no longer useful to treat humans with deadly diseases. The key here is that there will be a state of permanent emergency where some new poison is always needed to keep profits at their previous artificially high level. If the local industry can't compete, and it's not necessary other than for a small group's continued profit, maybe it's time to move on. The alternative is a possibly long term loss of pollinators (because the insecticide goes down streams) and the development of stronger/larger reservoirs of mites, moths, molds that could permanently affect all pollinators in England.

martinald 6y ago
But what percentage of UK land is used for growing sugar beet? It must be a small fraction. How many bees are actually going to be in the vicinity of this? I can't see it being a large amount. Regarding "we can just import it", well yes, but if everyone took that opinion then there wouldn't be any farming anywhere eventually.
- kurthr 6y ago
  Sugar beets are only grown where cane is not a viable crop, but end-end they are typically about 2-3x the cost of production. Beet sugar is an awful ecological and economic choice created by putting taxes on the importation of cane sugar. To the extent that it is pure sucrose (and I'm not aware of any alcohols made from beets like rum is from molasses) there isn't any difference in the product either. The US pioneered the protection of the sugar industry with >100% tariffs (EU has followed) and thus they have the world's largest sugar beet industry... for little political reason other than protectionism for a Florida (or German dominated) industry. don't know if you should trust this link, but it's a decent paper: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7000/files/cp02zi02.pdf p.s. The paper ends in the late 90s although little has changed other than the closing of the US cane industry in Hawaii.

GordonS 6y ago

I don't know where you're from, but for our US readers it might be worth pointing out that large farms in the UK are nowhere near the size of "large" farms in the US. I've also never heard of "bees as a service" here, though I know it exists in the US. For reference, I'm not a farmer, but live in the British countryside.

monk_e_boy 6y ago
Agree, never heard of bees as a service - also live in a farming community. We farm different crops here.
- 40four 6y ago
  From the 'National Honey Board' website (USA) https://honey.com/newsroom/presskit/honey-industry-facts https://honey.com/newsroom/presskit/honey-industry-facts Many commercial beekeepers migrate their colonies during the year to provide pollination services to farmers and to reach the most abundant sources of nectar. Millions of acres of U.S. fruit, vegetable, oilseed and legume seed crops depend on insect pollination, including honey bees. The USDA has estimated that 80 percent of insect crop pollination is accomplished by honey bees. Approximately one-third of the total human diet is derived directly or indirectly from insect-pollinated plants (fruits, legumes and vegetables). Crop Dependence The almond crop is entirely dependent on honey bee pollination. Without honey bees, there would be no almonds. More than 80 percent of the world's almonds are produced in California.3 To pollinate California's approximately 790,000 bearing acres of almonds4 requires more than a million colonies of honey bees. Numerous other crops are 90 percent dependent on honey bee pollination. Some of those crops include apples, avocados, blueberries, cherries, cranberries and sunflowers. Other crops such as cucumbers, kiwi fruit, melons and vegetables are also pollinated by honey bees.*
  - GordonS 6y ago
    We're specifically discussing about the UK in this comment thread.

tchalla 6y ago

Monoculture is a high risk strategy for every facet of life - farms, investments, gene pools, markets etc. I feel you - I wish we talked about implications and made an explicit risk/reward trade off for any such decision.

antihero 6y ago
One could argue that this stems in fact from the division of labour itself.

stinos 6y ago

You make a very good point, but your post reads a bit too much like 'wild bees are fine'. I think you know what follows, but just for completeness and for other readers: they aren't, at all, just like insects in general (the numbers are so unbelievably insane I'm nog even going to look up the latest one but just say '70% decrease in the last couple of decades' and it will be ballpark correct, unfortunately). And unlike the domestic bees they cannot be bred (or at least not easily). Pesticides likely also play a role in there, small perhaps, habitat loss is estimated to be the main factor. Which mono-crops also is the key player in of course; not just because those fields are no habitat but also because upscaling leads to destroying the surroundings, and so on.

alsetmusic 6y ago
To the greater point of "insects," I was a child in the 80s. A road trip (driving in unpopulated areas) resulted in tons of bugs smacking the windshield, reducing visibility. That's much reduced.
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s about 50/50 from better aerodynamics and fewer insects.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    Source?
- saghm 6y ago
  I mean, all the bugs dying due to hitting windshields probably didn't help their population count...
40four 6y ago
This is fair. I did not mean to suggest there are no issues with wild bee populations declining. There certainly are. Also it's important to note that anything we call a 'wild' honey bee now is just a descendant of a once 'domesticated' variety, originally brought over by European settlers. So if you trace it back far enough, protecting 'wild' bees is sort of funny since it is an 'artificial' element we introduced to our environment in the first place. My gripe is these articles like to quote decrease in numbers observed by commercial bee keepers. They mislead people into thinking these are the same numbers scientists are observing in the overall wild bee population. Again, in America, something we introduced in the first place. They were not native. I think it is important to understand that mono crop farms, with crops that depend on pollinators, work closely hand in hand with commercial bee keepers. I have never seen this explained to people by any of these articles, probably because it does not server their agenda. Collateral damage from mono-crop farming practices (destruction of habitat, mass chemical application) is a big problem, but not being honest about the the history, and purposely hiding the large role commercial beekeepers play is not helpful. https://honey.com/blog/honey-in-history-colonial-america https://honey.com/blog/honey-in-history-colonial-america

TeaDrunk 6y ago

Wild bee populations have also dropped like a stone and that is also worth worrying for.

Jefff8 6y ago

I don't think that brought in bee keeping exists very much in the UK. I live near the edge of fields, in a semi-rural setting. I've never seen it. I have see plenty of wild bees and bee hives.

dan-robertson 6y ago

The sugar beet farmers groups have been trying to get emergency authorisation ever since the pesticides were banned. I feel like it isn’t a sustainable situation and these farmers unions are either misleading or foolish if they believe these measures will be both temporary and successful. They also seem to have a weird line about the zeitgeist against refined sugar (maybe the article mentions this as a reference to honey but honey bees aren’t so badly affected by this chemical as bumble bees are) as if they are suggesting they aren’t producing refined sugar and that they are some important part of the future desired by the people who support the neonicotinoid ban.

jimnotgym 6y ago
I think this is especially troublesome from the National Farmers Union. They were simultaneously campaigning publicly to keep EU standards (to protect their members from cheaper imports), whilst privately lobbying the government to lower standards. They have lost an awful lot of credibility with environmentalists over this. For a bit of added intrigue, cane sugar producers Tate & Lyle were major Brexit supporters in order to get tarrifs on cane sugar dropped.

simon1ltd 6y ago

I don’t think there’s a big difference between “wild” bees and the “domesticated” or farmed bees that you seem to believe exists. I’m in Ohio, and I’ve only been keeping bees for 3-4 years now, but I’ve attended lectures and talked to many longtime keepers in my area (Ohio). I specifically asked about wild bees, and the answer I got was unexpected, but made sense once it was explained to me. The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives. I can’t speak to anywhere else, but it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the wild and managed bees are essentially the same.

hinkley 6y ago
Beekeepers will go out and gather swarms or extract them from unwanted places if they know about them, and they have capacity. Beekeepers losing their hives drives up demand for harvesting wild ones. So even if that weren’t a two way street, the wild ones would still be under duress.
saghm 6y ago
> The PhD speaker, who’s worked in pesticide research his entire career, explained that around here American Foul Brood wiped out > 95% of hives in many areas over the span of a decade (70s or 80s?) — and he said there’s no reason to believe that the “wild” bees fared any differently. In fact, he believes we still have wild bees because of natural swarming behavior — meaning our wild bees are heavily linked with the commercially managed hives. Not trying to discount this, as I know basically nothing about pesticides or bees, but doesn't this seem a little circular? The conclusion that the bees in the wild are heavily linked with our bees is based on the assumption that they were fairly similar in the first place, i.e. "there's no reason to believe the wild bees faired any differently". In other words, "the wild bees are doing about the same now because they did about the same before", but without any strong evidence that they did about the same in the first place. I assume I'm missing something?