Bees Are Bouncing Back from Colony Collapse Disorder(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Bees Are Bouncing Back from Colony Collapse Disorder
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/good-news-for-bees-as-numbers-recover-while-mystery-malady-wanes
96 comments
People are worried about the wrong bees. Hundreds of native bee species are in decline - possibly due to pesticides and loss of habitat. An enormous number of plants - including many crops - are dependent on native bees for pollination.
Don't worry, the people selling you the products killing the bees will soon sell you a solution to pollinate your crop without bees.
The link is broken.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect...
Shucks, I noticed 4 minutes after you posted. Thanks.
Drive thru Oklahoma at night and you'll have a lot of bugs on your car.
Though as I say that, I think about last time I went thru that state I didn't have as many bugs as I remember in the past....
Though as I say that, I think about last time I went thru that state I didn't have as many bugs as I remember in the past....
Growing up on the East Coast, I remember thousands and thousands of fireflies dotted the tree line at dusk in the summer. The whole forest sparkled.
Now when I go back home there are maybe a dozen flying around at a time.
Now when I go back home there are maybe a dozen flying around at a time.
Have the street cars and lamp-posts changed their lighting to LED?
anecdotal, having both LED and halogen exterior lights on the home I haven't seen any real difference in bug attraction. I did post a while back about how the recent change over of street lamps to LED in my neighborhood messed up the birds for awhile.
I have a standard "orange" streetlamp between my lot and the next house and two LED on opposite sides of the street in both directions about three hundred feet down from the house. It is now like having a full moon all the time. Apparently when mounting LED replacements they get no hoods or other mechanisms to limit light spread
I have a standard "orange" streetlamp between my lot and the next house and two LED on opposite sides of the street in both directions about three hundred feet down from the house. It is now like having a full moon all the time. Apparently when mounting LED replacements they get no hoods or other mechanisms to limit light spread
All of these articles only ever focus on commercial bee populations. I'm a lot more interested in what's happening to wild bees.
Nobody mentions this reason to love bees: they make excellent inspiration. I have a big deadline coming up and just moved my desk to face the garden. Watching the bumble bees nosing around the lavender patch is keeping me more industrious than the carrot/stick!
Try putting a bit of honey out and watch how many come. They can smell out honey to rob from a long way off.
Im not sure if this is tongue-in-cheek (I was serious in my earlier post) but why not. For science!
It wasn't. I was extracting honey from comb one weekend. Shut the place up and left it on kitchen bench draining into a bowl. Came back to half a dozen in the honey, a couple on the bench and others randomly smashing into windows looking for gaps. Even once covered and sealed I could hear them at night getting inside. It was like a version of Hitchcock's Birds, but non terrifying.
Mites have been the largest issue and will likely take decades for the genetics to select out for an uneasy balance. In the mean time, the commercial guys can't keep doing business as usual and have to cleanup their act - they had a nice free ride for a while
The article makes it sound like it's not clear that is the issue. By the end it makes it sound like they really want to say it's pesticides, but the farming industry relies on that so much for "good looking" food that perhaps beekeepers are worried that if they point at that, farmers will be angry with them.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm talking about what was written in this article. I know nothing about the past mite issues in feral bee populations. Not debating that.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm talking about what was written in this article. I know nothing about the past mite issues in feral bee populations. Not debating that.
Varroa destructor mites are widely believed to have driven North American feral honeybees (themselves an introduced, invasive species) to extinction almost 2 decades ago. If there's controversy about this, I'd love to see sources.
This is absolutely not true. A common and unfortunately widespread misconception by many in the beekeeping world and it's unfortunate these ideas persist.
This is a landmark census of a known population of feral bees before and after Varroa introduction: ~25 years apart [1]. The evolved methods of this particular group for Varroa defense are not the typical methods (hygienic behavior) that are seen with modern treatment-free survivor bees. There are now known to be a diverse array of natural methods that honeybees survive in the wild against Varroa. A couple of very recent papers survey these [2][3]. The last 5-10 years have seen an explosion of primary literature research on the topic, as well as queen breeders all over NA producing bees with genetic traits that allow them to survive without our help. You may also want to peruse this recent and passionate plea from one of the top honeybee researches in the world to move towards beekeeping methods that let bees better survive in the wild and stop circumventing their efforts [4].
Honeybees survive in the wild in North America despite beekeeper activities, not because of them.
[1] https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/... [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12448/abstrac... [4] http://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping
This is a landmark census of a known population of feral bees before and after Varroa introduction: ~25 years apart [1]. The evolved methods of this particular group for Varroa defense are not the typical methods (hygienic behavior) that are seen with modern treatment-free survivor bees. There are now known to be a diverse array of natural methods that honeybees survive in the wild against Varroa. A couple of very recent papers survey these [2][3]. The last 5-10 years have seen an explosion of primary literature research on the topic, as well as queen breeders all over NA producing bees with genetic traits that allow them to survive without our help. You may also want to peruse this recent and passionate plea from one of the top honeybee researches in the world to move towards beekeeping methods that let bees better survive in the wild and stop circumventing their efforts [4].
Honeybees survive in the wild in North America despite beekeeper activities, not because of them.
[1] https://www.apidologie.org/articles/apido/abs/2007/01/m6063/... [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... [3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12448/abstrac... [4] http://www.naturalbeekeepingtrust.org/darwinian-beekeeping
> Honeybees survive in the wild in North America despite beekeeper activities, not because of them.
Do we want honeybees to survive in the wild in North America? They are, after all, an invasive species. I'm not sure if they have any particularly destructive ecological effects, but certainly the ecosystem would work just fine without honeybees as it has for millennia? I'm not sure why making it easier for feral bee colonies to form should be considered a priority.
Do we want honeybees to survive in the wild in North America? They are, after all, an invasive species. I'm not sure if they have any particularly destructive ecological effects, but certainly the ecosystem would work just fine without honeybees as it has for millennia? I'm not sure why making it easier for feral bee colonies to form should be considered a priority.
Could you be clearer which part of what I said is "absolutely not true"? It's interesting that there are isolated colonies of feral honey bees that have evolved Varroa defenses, but my point is just that Varroa mites devastated the feral honey bee population in the US.
Having read the papers attached, and parsed your point of view, I'd say that the part that its "absolutely not true" is where you say, with some level of authority, that feral honey bees were devastated by the Varroa mite.
They weren't devastated, and have in fact evolved to deal with it.
What's missing, is your understanding that pesticides have caused far more devastation across a greater variety of honeybee species. Varroa mites are a straw man.
The consensus still holds, that pesticides are responsible for the decline: not mites.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27980344
They weren't devastated, and have in fact evolved to deal with it.
What's missing, is your understanding that pesticides have caused far more devastation across a greater variety of honeybee species. Varroa mites are a straw man.
The consensus still holds, that pesticides are responsible for the decline: not mites.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27980344
Sorry, I think you're going to need to (1) clarify exactly what it is you're claiming and (2) back that up with a source that isn't simply a news outlet reporting things secondhand.
Regarding (1): are you trying to say that recent bee losses are related to pesticides and not mites? We might not disagree. The eradication of feral honey bees occurred decades ago. Neonicotinoids were introduced more recently. Clearly there are some feral honey bee colonies today (after all: American beekeepers keep reintroducing new honey bees). If you want to tell me that pesticides are a greater threat to those colonies than the Varroa mites that wiped out all the 90s-vintage honeybees, I'm not going to dispute that.
Regarding (1): are you trying to say that recent bee losses are related to pesticides and not mites? We might not disagree. The eradication of feral honey bees occurred decades ago. Neonicotinoids were introduced more recently. Clearly there are some feral honey bee colonies today (after all: American beekeepers keep reintroducing new honey bees). If you want to tell me that pesticides are a greater threat to those colonies than the Varroa mites that wiped out all the 90s-vintage honeybees, I'm not going to dispute that.
I'm saying your claim that its mites is a straw man, is all. We've actually had almost this exact conversation before, you and I, and last time you weren't convinced that the science was 'sound enough'.
I don't expect you to be convinced this time, but .. lets see:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49768/...
I don't expect you to be convinced this time, but .. lets see:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1393
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49768/...
Sorry, I'm still not clear just exactly what it is you're claiming. I don't need to critically read magazine articles (or their sources) if we agree on the argument you're defending with them.
If all you're saying is that neonicotinoids are bad for honey bees, I don't disagree! My issue is that I don't think it really matters what's bad for honey bees, because it's not like there was a thriving population of wild honey bees for neonicotinoids to ravage: the mites took care of that 2 decades ago.
If all you're saying is that neonicotinoids are bad for honey bees, I don't disagree! My issue is that I don't think it really matters what's bad for honey bees, because it's not like there was a thriving population of wild honey bees for neonicotinoids to ravage: the mites took care of that 2 decades ago.
Well, either way, you and me should (and are?) both quite happy to know that neonicotinoids will no longer be being used in many expanding markets for bee-based products .. at least, I am.
Glad, also, to hear the bees can bounce back. In my neck of the woods though, it has to be said: there are as many bees as ever, and that is to say: lots. Happy summer!
Glad, also, to hear the bees can bounce back. In my neck of the woods though, it has to be said: there are as many bees as ever, and that is to say: lots. Happy summer!
Mites are not 100% the culprit - but a lot of groups including the US Gov't are still looking into all causes.
My father has been briefed by the USDA more than once on the issue, it's complicated and nation states haven't been ruled out according to the last update he had.
Most likely it's a number of causes.
My father has been briefed by the USDA more than once on the issue, it's complicated and nation states haven't been ruled out according to the last update he had.
Most likely it's a number of causes.
Nation states? Seriously? Did they say how they thought a nation state could do that on such a wide scale?
Offensive genetic engineering and release of modified organisms is sure to happen once the techniques become available.
It's untraceable, gradual, and the investment required to do it will be well within the reach of major nations.
And what better weapon than one which, once released, requires no upkeep or maintainence and slowly cripples key biological supports of your rival's economy?
It's untraceable, gradual, and the investment required to do it will be well within the reach of major nations.
And what better weapon than one which, once released, requires no upkeep or maintainence and slowly cripples key biological supports of your rival's economy?
The search for enemies has gone way too far among that crowd. On the bright side at least terrorists were in that description.
In the end the culprit turns out to be Arab terrorists who impersonated midwestern farmers for decades so they could overspray pesticides sand make everyone fat with corn sugar. It's dastardly!
First hacking elections and now this. When does Vladimir ever stop? /s
One source claims that bee populations are bouncing back. I think I'd like to see more scientific sources assert this before I believe the good news
> "…the overall increase is largely the result of constant replenishment of losses, the study showed."
Very misleading headline. The bees are not bouncing back, humans are splitting up stronger hives into weaker hives. Kinda like saying humankind is beating cancer by having more babies in third-world countries.
Very misleading headline. The bees are not bouncing back, humans are splitting up stronger hives into weaker hives. Kinda like saying humankind is beating cancer by having more babies in third-world countries.
This is simply not true.
As other have noted, splitting is a natural process of beekeeping.
however, I've noticed a discernible change in the beekeeping profession in the last 10 years.
To take a step back - there is a huge variation in bee characteristics from hive to hive.
What I've noticed is that package and nuc suppliers (aka bee breeders) are far less likely to treat hives. And it has become near impossible to buy 'traditional' chemical bee disease medications.
The prevailing modus operandi these days is to leverage natural evolutionary processes. I.e. let weak hive fail and therefor let undesirable genes phase out.
As other have noted, splitting is a natural process of beekeeping.
however, I've noticed a discernible change in the beekeeping profession in the last 10 years.
To take a step back - there is a huge variation in bee characteristics from hive to hive.
What I've noticed is that package and nuc suppliers (aka bee breeders) are far less likely to treat hives. And it has become near impossible to buy 'traditional' chemical bee disease medications.
The prevailing modus operandi these days is to leverage natural evolutionary processes. I.e. let weak hive fail and therefor let undesirable genes phase out.
"As other have noted, splitting is a natural process of beekeeping."
Uh, splitting is very much not natural (at least, I'm taking this to mean artificial splits - if you're saying swarming is a form of splitting, which isn't unreasonable even if it's not the wording I'd use, then disregards this comment). It's part of 20th century beekeeping, yes, but swarming is natural bee behavior, and unnatural practices like splitting, queen clipping, brood cutting, sugar feeding etc. are creating fragile colonies with weak resistance that depend on human intervention (including chemical varroa treatment) to survive.
And this is not just ideology, this is the trend in all apiculture/bee entomology journals over the last say 5 years.
Uh, splitting is very much not natural (at least, I'm taking this to mean artificial splits - if you're saying swarming is a form of splitting, which isn't unreasonable even if it's not the wording I'd use, then disregards this comment). It's part of 20th century beekeeping, yes, but swarming is natural bee behavior, and unnatural practices like splitting, queen clipping, brood cutting, sugar feeding etc. are creating fragile colonies with weak resistance that depend on human intervention (including chemical varroa treatment) to survive.
And this is not just ideology, this is the trend in all apiculture/bee entomology journals over the last say 5 years.
If you have a strong hive, do you let it swarm or do you intervene and split it?
(for the uninitiated, good hives grow to the point that the queen and half the hive leave to make a new colony, then you have a 50/50 chance the original hive will raise a new queen, that the queen will mate and make it back to the hive without been eaten)
Let me expand my original statement for clarification. splitting leverages the natural process of swarming in the field of beekeeping.
As to some of the other 'interventions' you mention I politely disagree. It's sort of like saying cows are weak in Canada because farmers don't let them freeze to death in winter.
I recently had a hive attacked by ants. They lost a lot of food and brood. Do I let them head into fall and winter with little to no chance of survival? The fact the ants got into the colony was no fault of the bees, just bad luck.
There's survival of the fittest and there's animal husbandry. The two aren't completely incompatible.
(for the uninitiated, good hives grow to the point that the queen and half the hive leave to make a new colony, then you have a 50/50 chance the original hive will raise a new queen, that the queen will mate and make it back to the hive without been eaten)
Let me expand my original statement for clarification. splitting leverages the natural process of swarming in the field of beekeeping.
As to some of the other 'interventions' you mention I politely disagree. It's sort of like saying cows are weak in Canada because farmers don't let them freeze to death in winter.
I recently had a hive attacked by ants. They lost a lot of food and brood. Do I let them head into fall and winter with little to no chance of survival? The fact the ants got into the colony was no fault of the bees, just bad luck.
There's survival of the fittest and there's animal husbandry. The two aren't completely incompatible.
They are largely incompatible. The ideal animal husbandry model is different for populations that are going to be culled without breeding. Ex: Veal.
Useing similar methods on fast breeding species where you keep the offspring is a very bad idea long term. The only way to keep things stable is to have breeders who focus on culling the weak. But, you need a large breeding population to maintain genetic diversity.
Useing similar methods on fast breeding species where you keep the offspring is a very bad idea long term. The only way to keep things stable is to have breeders who focus on culling the weak. But, you need a large breeding population to maintain genetic diversity.
This shift is happening, but I see it far too slowly, still. At least in my area, the dominate beekeepers who do it for commercial enterprise (and have the majority of all hives) still treat because they are protecting their income. Hobbyists are more quickly adopting treatment-free methods which I think is accelerating this trend.
I wonder if this is region specific. It isn't a thing here in New Zealand. My understanding is that the US has a very genetically diverse bee population with many different genetic strains available. A strength and weakness of being remote down here is that we don't necessarily get the diseases, but we don't have the genetic pool available to fight diseases when they arrive.
The mites are a colossal problem here.
This was literally from the article.
> “You create new hives by breaking up your stronger hives, which just makes them weaker,” said Tim May, a beekeeper in Harvard, Illinois and the vice-president of the American Beekeeping Federation based in Atlanta.
There are many ways to split hives, the way we've been doing it to combat CCD is creating weaker hives (and thus more susceptible to mites and other diseases).
> “You create new hives by breaking up your stronger hives, which just makes them weaker,” said Tim May, a beekeeper in Harvard, Illinois and the vice-president of the American Beekeeping Federation based in Atlanta.
There are many ways to split hives, the way we've been doing it to combat CCD is creating weaker hives (and thus more susceptible to mites and other diseases).
Hive splitting is quite a natural process. New "weak" hives quickly become "strong" hives. A single queen bee can lay hundreds and even thousands of eggs per day. During late spring, hive population doubles every few weeks.
You can read a brief overview here ... http://americanbeejournal.com/beekeeping-by-the-numbers-2/
You can read a brief overview here ... http://americanbeejournal.com/beekeeping-by-the-numbers-2/
Ahh, I don't think so. The _rate_ of CCD has decreased since last year. If we were "splitting up stronger hives into weaker hives", shouldn't CCD have stayed the same or increased?
> The number of hives lost to Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon of disappearing bees that has raised concerns among farmers and scientists for a decade, was 84,430 in this year’s first quarter, down 27 percent from a year earlier. Year-over-year losses declined by the same percentage in April through June, the most recent data in the survey.
//edit: but idk, maybe I'm confused here too. At the very least, we've figured out a way to breed bees quickly so that we can outpace CCD?
> The number of hives lost to Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon of disappearing bees that has raised concerns among farmers and scientists for a decade, was 84,430 in this year’s first quarter, down 27 percent from a year earlier. Year-over-year losses declined by the same percentage in April through June, the most recent data in the survey.
//edit: but idk, maybe I'm confused here too. At the very least, we've figured out a way to breed bees quickly so that we can outpace CCD?
Colony Collapse Disorder is roughly defined as unexpected colony death over winter. A previous base rate of 10% colony loss increased to 15-25% colony loss during different years. There are lots of theories about why, but note that wild swarm mortality during winter is over 80%. CCD is a problem in domestic hives, and may very well be a consequence of some aspect of modern beekeeping practices.
This is the chance of an entirely colony dying out, right, not just the per-capita mortality rate?
Honey bees in the United States are livestock. Their existence on this continent is mediated entirely by our actions.
Do you mean to say that the ones I see in grass and parks are some beekeeper's? I'm doubtful, but that would be pretty interesting. Are there that many amateur beekeeper's? I figured they were much less common a backyard project than chickens.
Not all bees are honey bees. GP was talking about Apis mellifera. You probably encountered Bombus impatiens.
Bumble bees aren't honey bees just like buffalo aren't wild milk cows.
Some have recommended farmers replace pollination with hardier indigenous mason bees or bumble bees, rather than use domesticated honey bees, in response to CCD.
Bumble bees aren't honey bees just like buffalo aren't wild milk cows.
Some have recommended farmers replace pollination with hardier indigenous mason bees or bumble bees, rather than use domesticated honey bees, in response to CCD.
Of course there are wild honeybees. Non-native (to the US), yes, but definitely wild.
It's highly unlikely that GP cannot tell the difference between a bumble bee and a honey bee.
It's highly unlikely that GP cannot tell the difference between a bumble bee and a honey bee.
> Of course there are wild honeybees.
Huh.
For me, the word "honey" in front of the word "bee" indicates a function it is performing for humans. If that's the case, then well, you can't have a "wild honey bee;" it'd be self-contradictory. It'd be like talking about a "wild milk cow" or a "wild show dog" or a "wild support animal."
It just sounds... off.
So, no, I didn't think you could have wild honey bees. You seem pretty certain I'm wrong though, so I'm thinking it over.
Also, n.b., maybe the confusion is partly about "wild" vs. "feral?"
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-feral-an...
Maybe you and I just use a few of these words in radically incompatible ways.
> It's highly unlikely that GP cannot tell the difference between a bumble bee and a honey bee.
It honestly wasn't very clear.
CCD is one of those topics where lay people and especially journalists get really confused or possibly just lazy about what bees are relevant to the conversation. So I took tp's comment way back as noting that we're mainly talking about domestic bees here, as a shot at focusing the discussion. He got a response about random bees found in parks, which, what with the comparison to chickens especially, seemed either sarcastic and missing the point or just deeply confused.
So I started at the lowest possible level of confusion and decided we could work up from there if necessary. Maybe I should have been more charitable to start, but I didn't want to risk another detour because we skipped too many steps ahead, which seemed to be the exact problem the first time.
Maybe the comment was literally just expressing excitement at the possibility that the apis seen in parks are related to backyard cultivation, and I read it completely the wrong way.
Huh.
For me, the word "honey" in front of the word "bee" indicates a function it is performing for humans. If that's the case, then well, you can't have a "wild honey bee;" it'd be self-contradictory. It'd be like talking about a "wild milk cow" or a "wild show dog" or a "wild support animal."
It just sounds... off.
So, no, I didn't think you could have wild honey bees. You seem pretty certain I'm wrong though, so I'm thinking it over.
Also, n.b., maybe the confusion is partly about "wild" vs. "feral?"
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-feral-an...
Maybe you and I just use a few of these words in radically incompatible ways.
> It's highly unlikely that GP cannot tell the difference between a bumble bee and a honey bee.
It honestly wasn't very clear.
CCD is one of those topics where lay people and especially journalists get really confused or possibly just lazy about what bees are relevant to the conversation. So I took tp's comment way back as noting that we're mainly talking about domestic bees here, as a shot at focusing the discussion. He got a response about random bees found in parks, which, what with the comparison to chickens especially, seemed either sarcastic and missing the point or just deeply confused.
So I started at the lowest possible level of confusion and decided we could work up from there if necessary. Maybe I should have been more charitable to start, but I didn't want to risk another detour because we skipped too many steps ahead, which seemed to be the exact problem the first time.
Maybe the comment was literally just expressing excitement at the possibility that the apis seen in parks are related to backyard cultivation, and I read it completely the wrong way.
Unkept honey bees can be either wild or feral. And the distinction is not always clear -- how many generations does it take for a bloodline to revert to "wild"?
And of course, a honey bee is any apis that produces honey. While not species-specific, it is genus-constraining, instead of function-labeling. More like "sugar maple" (most of which are untapped, but they still produce), and not "milk cow".
Fair points on the confusion and ambiguity. My comment wasn't really worthwhile (and you obviously know all of these rejoinders) but the floated implication seemed absurd and a little pointed. Future self will endeavour to be more valorous.
And of course, a honey bee is any apis that produces honey. While not species-specific, it is genus-constraining, instead of function-labeling. More like "sugar maple" (most of which are untapped, but they still produce), and not "milk cow".
Fair points on the confusion and ambiguity. My comment wasn't really worthwhile (and you obviously know all of these rejoinders) but the floated implication seemed absurd and a little pointed. Future self will endeavour to be more valorous.
The bees I've seen swarming my garbage all my life are definitely not bumble bees.
might not be bees at all. yellowjackets like trash.
Had to look up yellowjackets. Here's what Wikipedia says:
Yellowjacket or yellow jacket is the common name in North America for predatory social wasps of the genera Vespula and Dolichovespula. Members of these genera are known simply as "wasps" in other English-speaking countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowjacket
Yellowjacket or yellow jacket is the common name in North America for predatory social wasps of the genera Vespula and Dolichovespula. Members of these genera are known simply as "wasps" in other English-speaking countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowjacket
Hornets are also members of this sub-family. These are really nasty. There are many wasps that are not very aggressive, they'll sting you if you literally hit their nest, or accidentally sit on one, but hornets and yellowjackets are very aggressive near their nests, really nasty bugs to accidentally encounter when mowing the grass or sitting on a bench when they have built homes.
I would say most people would easily be able to distinguish between a honeybee and any wasp (once shown what each looks like obviously).
I would say most people would easily be able to distinguish between a honeybee and any wasp (once shown what each looks like obviously).
An interesting thing that allows the killing of these wasps without harming bees - they go for protein in a big way, while bees usually don't.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/waspcontrol
http://www.doc.govt.nz/waspcontrol
The standard range is given as 3km, but have been observed far further out than that at times. Given that they communicate to each other where food sources are, they can efficiently harvest for a long way off. It's also surprising where hives are and you can quite easily hide one away such that it's not easily noticed by neighbours - an entrance facing a high fence or wall forces them to fly way up before moving horizontally.
I have no idea how common it is in the States but poking about suggests that here in NZ there are about half a million hives. There are about 5550 total beekeeping enterprises in New Zealand, of which only 803 were commercial. Anything less that 50 hives was considered hobbyist.
I have no idea how common it is in the States but poking about suggests that here in NZ there are about half a million hives. There are about 5550 total beekeeping enterprises in New Zealand, of which only 803 were commercial. Anything less that 50 hives was considered hobbyist.
There are very many backyard beekeepers, even in urban areas. I have a pair of hives on my small city lot and most neighbors don't even know. This isn't uncommon these days.
Having said that, there are wild bees, and bees 'escape' from beekeepers by swarming and forming new hives on their own. They try to reproduce by creating new hives as frequently as they can.
Having said that, there are wild bees, and bees 'escape' from beekeepers by swarming and forming new hives on their own. They try to reproduce by creating new hives as frequently as they can.
I guess my question would be, why should I care about isolated feral honey bee colonies? They're not a native species; they don't "belong" here. As long as beekeepers can cost-effectively maintain their pollination capabilities (perhaps at marginally higher cost), what's the public policy implication of CCD?
Poison builds up in comb and honey from the agents required to treat mites. It's making beekeeping harder, and the relationship between bee keepers harder (e.g. People treat diseases out of sync with each other, messing up the treatment process as bees drift to each others hives, spreading disease). Pollination as a service is expensive and lastly, it's a bit sad walking past a feral colony that's been there many years and seeing it dead.
But this isn't unknowable. The prices for pollination are basically public, as are the prices for precursors of bee colonies. If beekeeping is getting untenably expensive, that should be reflected in both those prices. Why isn't it?
Here in NZ, Manuka honey. It commands a serious price and is what everyone is after. Last season bordered on disastrous due to the weather but the aim of the big players is to get Manuka. If you haven't heard of it I'm not surprised - it's a dark, not particularly nice honey that has some pretty amazing anti-bacterial properties. It's being used in all sorts of things, cosmetics, medications, dressings, foods etc.
If CCD is causing a real economic problem in the US, we should see its impact in the prices of pollination services and in the cost of colony precursors. Do we?
Good question. We see it here in the price of hives and nuc colonies. It's gone up as they take more effort to build and maintain.
> humans are splitting up stronger hives into weaker hives
That's not really an accurate way of describing beekeeping procedure. Yes hives are split, but that's how hives reproduce in nature. "Weaker" hives just start smaller and grow.
Not that CCD isn't worth looking into, but it's not like the average hive comes out weaker.
That's not really an accurate way of describing beekeeping procedure. Yes hives are split, but that's how hives reproduce in nature. "Weaker" hives just start smaller and grow.
Not that CCD isn't worth looking into, but it's not like the average hive comes out weaker.
My understanding is that CCD is defined by an increase in overwintering losses of whole hives. But overwintering losses of hives are something that happens with or without a new disease, and represent essentially a livestock management problem for beekeepers.
Losses are made up for by splitting hives and introducing new queens, which are bought on an open market. You can see the price for a new queen right now; it's low tens of dollars.
Losses are made up for by splitting hives and introducing new queens, which are bought on an open market. You can see the price for a new queen right now; it's low tens of dollars.
>In the survey, a hive loss was attributed to colony collapse if varroa or other mites were ruled out as a cause; few dead bees were found in a hive, a sign that they fled; a queen bee and food reserves were both seemingly normal pre-collapse; and food reserves were left alone after fleeing.
How are the queens produced? Do they naturally just occur in the hive or are there ways to trigger embryonic bees to become queens?
Fascinatingly, you can intentionally induce it. First Googleable cite I could find: http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/queenrear.html
Agriculture: security research as applied to biology.
Agriculture: security research as applied to biology.
Life is information embodied physically to take care of itself. Starting with the first vaguely reproducing whatever, all the way down to us DNA-encoded eukaryotes.
It should not be surprising if some aspects of biology are analogous to aspects of computing. In fact it isn't even an analogy.
It should not be surprising if some aspects of biology are analogous to aspects of computing. In fact it isn't even an analogy.
All workers are also females, and they start out the same egg as a queen (fertilized). The workers choose to create a queen which has mature reproductive organs by what it feeds the larva. Specifically, NOT feeding it honey and pollen, typical worker larva food, and continuing a diet of royal jelly. Once the larva exceeds a certain age (typically 4-6 days), the path is set and cannot be changed.
Look up how you split a hive (basically you take some brood cells, and some food and a load of bees and put them in a new hive). The bees realise they are queenless and raise some brood to be queens. The first queen to emerge goes and kills the others being raised. Slightly strangely for a very organised species, the winner often isn't the best option and is usually the queen who emerges first. However the better queens are those that were fed royal jelly for longer.
Mating flights(s) then occur and then she is ready to go like crazy laying eggs, sometimes up to 2000 per day.
[deleted]
Totally agree with you that the title is misleading. Commercial bee hive number increased by 3% year on year, but there is still a lot of CCD.
So it's not clear if "Bees are bouncing back" or if beekeepers are getting better at preserving them or if USA just had a nicer weather.
Whatever decrease in losses they have from the disorder, my puppy is making up for by eating them. Or at least it seems like it. I have to make sure he doesn't get near any when I take him on walks and he still manages to get a couple here and there usually. I can't believe he hasn't been stung enough to stop going after them by now.
Has he considered authoring a paper on the subject? I mean, if a cat can publish one[0], it would be embarrassing to the canine race if dogs can't.
[0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/philosophy-journal-cor...
[0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/philosophy-journal-cor...
Do not forget Dr.Olivia Doll:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/how-one-smart-doggo-g...
Maybe he gets high off the stings as well as enjoying the flavour.
Are you sure they are bees and not wasps?
Not sure why this question is always asked on threads like this. Bees and wasps look very different, you can usually tell them apart at a distance of 5 meters, maybe more if you have time to watch it for it's behaviour while flying.
From my anecdotal experience, a lot of people in the US don't know the difference between a honey bee and a yellow jacket wasp.
Best headline I've seen all day, but the piece is much less cheery.
If only we could breed mites that would die off like those genetically modified mosquitos.
Or mites that only live from mites.
Or mites that only live from mites.
Reddit have a thread about this and apparently it's misleading and that the Bees are still dying.
I can have a cancer survival rate of 15% and get a 2% bounce back with 17% doesn't mean everything is swell.
I can have a cancer survival rate of 15% and get a 2% bounce back with 17% doesn't mean everything is swell.
So all those scientists in Nature and the big science journals were just chicken littles. To know the real story, get it from the pesticide makers!
What about the wild bees?
Feral ones are basically all dead here in New Zealand. They don't survive long in the wild. This may not be true where you are.
So basically this article is like an article that celebrates that tigers are "BOUNCING BACK" even though all the tigers in the wild are dead in many places, and only the ones in zoos live on?
WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO.
WHAT IS THIS WORLD COMING TO.
I know it's completely circumstantial but I have noticed sooo many more bees around my yard this year over the last several that it's given me hope!
Good work bees! I was feeling guilty for wishing them all dead one birthday wish after I got stung.
debt(1)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/where-have-all-insect...