4 ms·

We aren’t losing all of our honeybees (2020)

23 points by TheIronYuppie 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago
ask bee-keepers, not quants?
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  No, evaluate the evidence, not the people presenting it.
  - joshvm 3y ago
    GLP is a Monsanto-fronted publication [0], so there is a significant bias and I'd take anything they say (i.e. a company that really would like you to buy crop treatments) with a pinch of salt. [0] https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/ https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-pr...
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      Paraphrasing: "ok, but I am going to evaluate the person presenting it."
      - petee 3y ago
        Since its so easy to misrepresent data, it'd be irresponsible not to consider the presenter at all, especially one with a reputation such as Monsanto. All those ads/studies saying cigarettes were safe, also had evidence Edit: wont let me reply to you, but evidence can be cherry picked by the presenter to make it lean their way. Again, its irresponsible to not consider who is providing you that evidence. That said, I haven't seen you cite anything
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        You still haven't said anything about the actual evidence. The reason there was no reply button is just that not enough time had elapsed. Clever of you to try to turn it around, but sorry, no dice: the article you're dismissing IS the evidence. What do you have?
        smegsicle 3y ago
        you bring a compelling argument, however, has "monsanto is pushing it, so it's probably warped" ever led us wrong?
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        I expect they've sponsored a lot of research. So you've read it all?
  - hooverd 3y ago
    Honeybees aren't declining because they're managed. Other bees are. The evidence is that honeybees are doing okay- nothing about other bees. You should still ask yourself "is this a propaganda shop", because facts are only impartial devoid of context.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      "context" : another word for ad hominem argument you did at least respond to some arguments, so I'll give you that.
      - hooverd 3y ago
        I don't think they're bad people. I think the "center for promoting an agenda" type organizations have an incentive to promote their agendas.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        So no environmental or climate group's "research" is trustworthy either?
        hooverd 3y ago
        What are their incentives? I'd be weary of an environmental group that was focused on downplaying the byproducts of solar manufacturing. So, yes, their research would bias towards saying that climate change is a threat. Maybe they even stand to make money from it. It really depends on the group. I'd be more likely to trust an ag extension than a first party manufacturer on issues of pesticides. Edit: I'd apply the same thinking to say someone being paid to review hardware by a company vs a reviewer not being paid to.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        Incentives for a nonprofit are almost entirely about getting donations and grants. Without those they're out of business. So for the aforementioned groups, sending out exaggerated warnings about disaster are a constant temptation. If they sponsor or perform research, what are the chances it'll fail to support their public positions?
  - havershank 3y ago
    [dead]
lostlogin 3y ago
Going with this, here in New Zealand we have disease associated with the overcrowding from to the number of colonies. We have too many honey bees. As the number of colonies has started to fall in recent years, yield per hive has started to go up. Overcrowding leads to more mites, more AFB and less honey. It’s also a right PITA trying to get stuff done late season, as bees descend and cause chaos at the whiff of sugar/honey. I’m part of the problem with my small apiary in the back yard. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479084/number-of-beehives-fall-as-beekeepers-produce-22-000-tonnes-of-honey-in-2022 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479084/number-of-beehive...
- PlunderBunny 3y ago
  I'm very unfamiliar with this, so apologies for being vague, and for my failure to use the correct terminology: I remember reading (or someone telling me) that the design of beehives was partially to blame for the issues with mites - that the classic 'box' beehive didn't allow waste products (dead mites?) to fall out. Re-designing the hives so that they were suspended and had a grill at the bottom apparently improved the problem considerably. Do you have any knowledge in this area? If so, I'd appreciate hearing your take on it.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    Yes and no. There is some truth that certain aspects of modern beekeeping practices affect mites, for example we actually use foundation that encourages bees to produce cells (and therefore bees) a little larger than they would in nature, this extra space around the brood leaves more room for a mite to invade the cell. Similarly there is some evidence screened bottom boards like you describe can help by letting mites that fall off bees fall out of the hive. This isn't a more natural hive design however. In nature bees generally nest in holes in tree trunks, which definitely don't have open bottoms. There is no magic hive design that solves the mite problem. The big issue is that our bees (in the USA) are from Europe, while varroa is from Asia, meaning our bees have never evolved defenses against them. This is why mites have essentially wiped out feral beehives. The best hope for long term control is breeding programs breeding for bees that have behaviors that keep mites under control. In the meantime there are a number of things beekeepers can do to help the situation, but at this time they're aren't any known practices that will eliminate the need for treatment.
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
A recent article and discussion: There are too many honeybees https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203571

23 points by TheIronYuppie 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago

ask bee-keepers, not quants?

AlbertCory 3y ago
No, evaluate the evidence, not the people presenting it.
- joshvm 3y ago
  GLP is a Monsanto-fronted publication [0], so there is a significant bias and I'd take anything they say (i.e. a company that really would like you to buy crop treatments) with a pinch of salt. [0] https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-project/ https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-pr...
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Paraphrasing: "ok, but I am going to evaluate the person presenting it."
    - petee 3y ago
      Since its so easy to misrepresent data, it'd be irresponsible not to consider the presenter at all, especially one with a reputation such as Monsanto. All those ads/studies saying cigarettes were safe, also had evidence Edit: wont let me reply to you, but evidence can be cherry picked by the presenter to make it lean their way. Again, its irresponsible to not consider who is providing you that evidence. That said, I haven't seen you cite anything
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        You still haven't said anything about the actual evidence. The reason there was no reply button is just that not enough time had elapsed. Clever of you to try to turn it around, but sorry, no dice: the article you're dismissing IS the evidence. What do you have?
        smegsicle 3y ago
        you bring a compelling argument, however, has "monsanto is pushing it, so it's probably warped" ever led us wrong?
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        I expect they've sponsored a lot of research. So you've read it all?
- hooverd 3y ago
  Honeybees aren't declining because they're managed. Other bees are. The evidence is that honeybees are doing okay- nothing about other bees. You should still ask yourself "is this a propaganda shop", because facts are only impartial devoid of context.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    "context" : another word for ad hominem argument you did at least respond to some arguments, so I'll give you that.
    - hooverd 3y ago
      I don't think they're bad people. I think the "center for promoting an agenda" type organizations have an incentive to promote their agendas.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        So no environmental or climate group's "research" is trustworthy either?
        hooverd 3y ago
        What are their incentives? I'd be weary of an environmental group that was focused on downplaying the byproducts of solar manufacturing. So, yes, their research would bias towards saying that climate change is a threat. Maybe they even stand to make money from it. It really depends on the group. I'd be more likely to trust an ag extension than a first party manufacturer on issues of pesticides. Edit: I'd apply the same thinking to say someone being paid to review hardware by a company vs a reviewer not being paid to.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        Incentives for a nonprofit are almost entirely about getting donations and grants. Without those they're out of business. So for the aforementioned groups, sending out exaggerated warnings about disaster are a constant temptation. If they sponsor or perform research, what are the chances it'll fail to support their public positions?
- havershank 3y ago
  [dead]

lostlogin 3y ago

Going with this, here in New Zealand we have disease associated with the overcrowding from to the number of colonies. We have too many honey bees. As the number of colonies has started to fall in recent years, yield per hive has started to go up. Overcrowding leads to more mites, more AFB and less honey. It’s also a right PITA trying to get stuff done late season, as bees descend and cause chaos at the whiff of sugar/honey. I’m part of the problem with my small apiary in the back yard. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479084/number-of-beehives-fall-as-beekeepers-produce-22-000-tonnes-of-honey-in-2022 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479084/number-of-beehive...

PlunderBunny 3y ago
I'm very unfamiliar with this, so apologies for being vague, and for my failure to use the correct terminology: I remember reading (or someone telling me) that the design of beehives was partially to blame for the issues with mites - that the classic 'box' beehive didn't allow waste products (dead mites?) to fall out. Re-designing the hives so that they were suspended and had a grill at the bottom apparently improved the problem considerably. Do you have any knowledge in this area? If so, I'd appreciate hearing your take on it.
- Volundr 3y ago
  Yes and no. There is some truth that certain aspects of modern beekeeping practices affect mites, for example we actually use foundation that encourages bees to produce cells (and therefore bees) a little larger than they would in nature, this extra space around the brood leaves more room for a mite to invade the cell. Similarly there is some evidence screened bottom boards like you describe can help by letting mites that fall off bees fall out of the hive. This isn't a more natural hive design however. In nature bees generally nest in holes in tree trunks, which definitely don't have open bottoms. There is no magic hive design that solves the mite problem. The big issue is that our bees (in the USA) are from Europe, while varroa is from Asia, meaning our bees have never evolved defenses against them. This is why mites have essentially wiped out feral beehives. The best hope for long term control is breeding programs breeding for bees that have behaviors that keep mites under control. In the meantime there are a number of things beekeepers can do to help the situation, but at this time they're aren't any known practices that will eliminate the need for treatment.

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

A recent article and discussion: There are too many honeybees https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203571