5 ms·
The interesting bit is more that there's still an ongoing severe problem with bee colonies dying that hasn't been solved despite the apparent increase in overal
The interesting bit is more that there's still an ongoing severe problem with bee colonies dying that hasn't been solved despite the apparent increase in overall numbers:
"Sadly, however, this does not mean we’ve defeated colony collapse. One major citizen-science project found that beekeepers lost almost half of their colonies in the year ending in April 2023, the second-highest loss rate on record.
For now, we’re making up for it with aggressive management. The Texans told us that they were splitting their hives more often, replacing queens as often as every year and churning out bee colonies faster than the mites, fungi and diseases can take them down."
Sounds like the usual issues you see with an aggressive focus on monoculture.
I wonder if this is helping weed out the "africanized genes" (bees that will far more easily sting), or have southern beekeepers given up in that regard?
The way it would be weeded out is through selective queening. That's how the European honey bee has become so docile - pinching the agressive queens. So it could influence the genetics of the feral bee population, but I would guess it will be minimal.
I’m not in the region where they have Africanized bees, but following the research and stories from active keepers, it seem like it’s a combo of both keepers learning how to manage them plus shifts in genetics causing them to mellow some. From what I hear, there are small scale and hobby keepers in the southwest that are actively keeping and working them
Varroa mites are a vector for diseases and fungus and most likely the distal cause of most of the dying colonies. If they are not aggressively managed, they eventually lead to the death or absconding of almost every colony.
A lot of it's genetics over management in my experience. I've seen treatment-free colonies go multiple years with low mite numbers and treatment free yards overwinter 75-100% of colonies. I've also seen heavily managed hives take losses anyways, or abscond after treatment. Including some that take 75-100% losses. Many times the same apiary can go from one extreme to the other in a year or two.
The problem with the genetics is that it's extremely hard to maintain continuity of a colony beyond a few years because eventually they need to requeen. Those future queens are made from a variety of contributions of other gene lines due to the way the mating happens.
Can anecdotally confirm. I've had 100% surviving hives and continuous queen lineage now for 6-7 years. Before that I did minimal mite treatments (powdered sugar washes are nuts) and had 75% of hives abscond every year requiring new queens. My "neighbors" (>2mi away) rarely have a single hive survive a single winter.
My preference is to alternate "natural" thymol/oxalic treatments with Apivar. You can really see the reduction in virus laden malformed bees in a hive turnover (~6 weeks). Apivar treatment lasts a full year, but I'd rather not develop resistance (don't leave strips in the hive longer than 8 weeks!) so alternate years. The best time I've seen for treatment is right before large population booms (since there are fewer mites in brood). That usually means early winter after supers are removed, or after a queen swarm leaves in late winter/early spring.
One major challenge to resistant queens is that they tend to be more aggressive and their resistance is diluted unless you requeen (resistant) every year or two due to interbreeding with local non-resistant drones.
It's pretty common knowledge in the beekeeping world that losses are about 50% annually. Most beekeepers request every year or two as well.
The past couple years I've had high losses. Mostly due to yellow jacket pressure. But I'm also treatment-free and expect some losses from colonies that are less varroa hygienic and too late in the year to requeen.
Asking as someone not in the beekeeping world, do you get the impression that the colony loss rate is stable or increasing/decreasing?
It's extremely variable on an individual basis. I've had years with 100% survival and then others with 0% survival (small sample of under 10 hives), with other beekeepers experiencing similar losses.
There are some studies/surveys out there about survival rates (the population rate studies are less helpful). My understanding is the survival rate plummeted after the introduction of varroa but has been mostly stable around 50% survival nationally for over a decade.
"I'm treatment-free" is a particularly smug way of saying your apiary management strategy is to continuously bomb every surrounding apiary and whatever native pollinators may be in your area with parasites. There is a reason that professionals loathe hobby beekeepers.
Likely also economics, who knew?
Not the other guy, but presumably 'treatment free' means that you have hives full of diseased bees or bees infested with mites. Those sick/infested bees then spread those things to wild bees and to other apiaries. Even if the neighbors are willing to treat, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll survive being constantly reinfected by the non-treatment hives.
"There is a reason that professionals loathe hobby beekeepers."
Most hobby and small scale commercial beekeepers loathe the major beekeepers, and for good reason - trucking around diseases, exposing bees to fungicide and pesticides, creating unhealthy hive densities, etc. But I guess the large commercial outfits need someone to point the finger while the industry dies out due to cheap imports and the willingness of those large producers to subject their bees to active spraying during the pollination of many crops.
You do realize the parasites and diseases that affect native bees are not generally controlled for by commercial beekeepers, right? Even when they are practicing prophylactic treatment, the treatments are not effective at completely eliminating the parasites nor their transmission. Honeybees are a transmission vector for many diseases and parasites regardless of if they are large scale producers or not.
I would also hope that you realize that that just because someone says they're treatment-free doesn't mean thet are just bombing the surrounding areas with problems. IPM techniques can be effective at controlling pests and diseases. They simply aren't economical for the large commercial producers and they may not be as effective when those large producers subject their bees to the commonly poor conditions.
If the large scale commercial practices were really better, we'd see it in the survival rates. But the numbers don't support that.
Nonsense, every word.
Commercial beekeepers aggressively manage for varroa and other diseases, if they didn't the resulting dieoffs would bankrupt them. Backyard hobbyists don't have more skin in the game than folks who literally pay their mortgage off their hives, and they sure af don't have more experience with any aspect of hive management than individuals who are successfully managing hundreds if not thousands of hives.
IPM isn't "treatment-free" beekeeping which I think we'd both agree is gross neglegence. IPM techniques are also rarely used effectively. Don't agree? Figure out what percentage of hobby beekeepers in your area have reached the level of experience/education of a journeyman beekeeper. If it's 20:1 I'll kiss your ass. Regardless of treatment strategy one management fuckup leading to a single hive collapse absolutely sprays the surrounding 2-3 mile area with diseases and parasites. Given annual failure rates all beekeepers are bombing their surroundings with problems, hobby beekeepers just do so for their own personal amusement regardless of which treatment strategy they employ, and treatment-free beekeepers are way WAY worse about this than any other segment of the industry.
Lastly, I advanced no claim that commercial practices are particularly superior at keeping bees alive, although they and related government ag programs are the only credible sources of ongoing breeding to improve varroa resistance, an effort that is vastly complicated by having to geographically isolate breeding operations to try to avoid cross-breeding from unmanaged populations (read backyard hives).
"Commercial beekeepers aggressively manage for varroa and other diseases, if they didn't the resulting dieoffs would bankrupt them."
Who is speaking nonsense now? Yes, they typically treat for some pests and disease. Those pests and diseases that they generally treat for do not affect native bees. Even when they do treat, they don't have full elimination and are still transmissible. You can see they they still suffer about 50% colony loss like the smaller producers.
"and they sure af don't have more experience with any aspect of hive management than individuals who are successfully managing hundreds if not thousands of hives."
And the people keeping hundreds and thousands of hives for commercial purposes don't have as much time to spend on full inspections. If they know so much about management, then they must be making intentionally poor decisions on how to manage when we talk about things like colony dirft and hive densities, transporting bees all over the place (accelerating any existing spread), and subjecting the bees to active spraying during pollination.
"One management fuckup leading to a single hive collapse absolutely sprays the surrounding 2-3 mile area with diseases and parasites."
Have any data to back that up? You do realize that many of the pests and diseases are routinely present in most hives, right? That's why you need actually concentrations for diagnosing things like nosema. I'd love to see an example of an apiary that has zero varroa too...
"Given annual failure rates all beekeepers are bombing their surroundings with problems, hobby beekeepers just do so for their own personal amusement regardless of which treatment strategy they employ."
This makes zero sense. You claim that all beekeepers are problems. But you only have a problem with small scale producers because they aren't paying their mortgage with it. Interesting distinction which bears no matter on the end result. So it appears this conversation is moot.
"an effort that is vastly complicated by having to geographically isolate breeding operations to try to avoid cross-breeding from unmanaged populations (read backyard hives)."
This is complete nonsense. The breeding programs rely on artificial insemination. You can't control the feral bee populations either, so you must do it in a lab. Most of these government bodies and ag extensions have resources (and requirements) for small scale beekeepers, and even encourage it. Most states have mandatory licensing and inspections too. Most beekeeping associations openly welcome beekeepers of any size operations. It seems you just have an axe to grind.
You need data to confirm the assertion that collapsing hives spread disease? Since you're so married to whatever chip you've got on your shoulder you apparently need a reminder that sick bees drifting to other hives and robbing out deadouts are both a thing I've appended a list of follow-up reading for your benefit.
Martin SJ. The role of Varroa and viral pathogens in the collapse of honeybee colonies: a modeling approach. J Appl Ecol. 2001;38(5):1082-1093. [doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00662.x]
Rosenkranz P, Aumeier P, Ziegelmann B. Biology and control of Varroa destructor. J Invertebr Pathol. 2010;103 Suppl 1:S96-S119. [doi:10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.016]
Graystock P, Blane EJ, McFrederick QS, Goulson D, Hughes WOH. Do managed bees drive parasite spread and emergence in wild bees? Int J Parasitol Parasites Wildl. 2016;5(1):64-75. [doi:10.1016/j.ijppaw.2015.12.001]
With that out of the way not -all- breeding programs rely on artificial insemination, maybe you've heard of Mike Palmer? You know, the guy that basically singlehandedly mainstreamed keeping nucleus colonies as an apiary management strategy? Or Randy Oliver? No? Your loss I suppose.
Go salve your feelings somewhere else, I'm done.