Beekeepers 1 - Colony Collapse Disorder 0
Erroll Ozgencil
2009 we have data from the USDA on honeybee population, production,
and yield spanning 2006, 2007, & 2008. The number of producing
colonies in the US was stable through 2007 (we even saw a slight
increase that year), then fell 6% in 2008. More detail here:
but I think an honest look at the data show that honeybees are not
being "wiped out". Words like "extinction" or "disappearance" are just
not accurate ways to describe CCD. I don't know how this will play out
in the future, but to this point CCD is not a story of catastrophe but
of beekeepers who are up to the challenge.
sch...@resa.net
> We first heard about Colony Collapse Disorder in 2006, now in early
> 2009 we have data from the USDA on honeybee population, production,
> and yield spanning 2006, 2007, & 2008. The number of producing
> colonies in the US was stable through 2007 (we even saw a slight
> increase that year), then fell 6% in 2008. More detail here:
>
>
> but I think an honest look at the data show that honeybees are not
> being "wiped out". Words like "extinction" or "disappearance" are just
> not accurate ways to describe CCD. I don't know how this will play out
> in the future, but to this point CCD is not a story of catastrophe but
> of beekeepers who are up to the challenge.
>
> Errollhttp://www.washingtonwinemaker.com/
Yet another person majing a judgment on CCD based on a set of very
misleading numbers from the USDA.
The problem with viewing CCD solely on the basis of producing colonies
is that beekeepers, especially those involved commercially (those that
are actually represented in the count) will go to great lengths to
replace a colony that has been killed off by either CCD, Varroa or
other causes. This does not mean that CCD is not having a significant
impact. Think of it this way: if U-Haul was having 38% of its trucks
totaled each year, but spending the money required to replace them,
the size of their fleet would appear on paper (based on sheer numbers)
to remain stable year on year. But the cost would be tremendous, and
U-Haul could not sustain losses like that for long. That is the
condition that has faces beekeepers.
The beekeeping community lost 750,000 to 1 million colonies last
year. That's tens of trillions of bees. Bees are being imported from
overseas now to replace those that can no longer be replaced by
domestic bee sources. The cost of replacing bees continues to rise,
and the number of beekeepers continues to fall, as those who can no
longer afford to replace their lost colonies leave the business.
see: http://maarec.cas.psu.edu/CCDPpt/CSIonCCDMar09.pdf
see: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/colony-collapse-disorder-88021704
If Washington Winemaker lost 95% of his vines, I'd consider that a
catastrophe for him, and not be making glib comments that he'd be "up
to the challenge."
Erroll Ozgencil
Beekeeping isn't truck rental. It makes no more sense to consider what
the truck rental industry would look like if it's depreciation
schedules were replaced by beekeepers' colony loss rates than it would
to replace the cost of feeding and treating a bee colony with the cost
of overhauling a truck.
If you're saying that beekeepers' costs have gone up because of CCD, I
believe you. And I sympathize. That's a different thing than saying
honeybees are headed for extinction, though.
Do you think they are? I mean honest to goodness extinction that we
could do nothing about no matter how much effort we put into it. If
they are, we would see it in the colony numbers *at some point*
wouldn't we? What point do you think that is? Would we see it in the
2009 colony count? 2010? When?
> The beekeeping community lost 750,000 to 1 million colonies last year.
> The cost of replacing bees continues to rise, and the number of beekeepers continues to fall
Am I reading you correctly that you think the biggest impact of CCD is
added cost? That this cost will continue to rise to the point where
beekeeping will become unprofitable? That ultimately bees will die off
entirely because they will not have beekeepers to support them? I'm
not being rhetorical, that's honestly what I think you're saying.
If that's true, then I think we disagree about the economics. I think
that if it's possible (with money no object) to maintain enough bees
to support agriculture, then we will and that cost will be passed on
to farmers first and consumers later. I also disagree that the cost of
dealing with CCD will necessarily rise forever. If you think it will,
why do you?
> If Washington Winemaker lost 95% of his vines, I'd consider that a
> catastrophe for him, and not be making glib comments that he'd be "up
> to the challenge."
Oh dear. I didn't mean to touch a nerve. Or be glib. I just prefer
verifiable data to hyperbole. And there is a lot of hyperbole being
batted about. Extinction? Wipe out? If CCD were really a kill shot to
Apis mellifera, then I don't think beekeepers would be *able* to
replace their losses, no matter how hard they tried.
sch...@resa.net
> > Think of it this way: if U-Haul was having 38% of its trucks totaled each year
>
> Beekeeping isn't truck rental.
>
Of course beekeeping isn't truck rental. And if you can point out to
me where I said that honeybees are headed for extinction, the next GC
Burgundy is on me. Analogies are useful, though, if you are trying to
understand the complexities of the situation. It doesn't matter what
your unit replacement cost is if you are losing 38% of your revenue
generating inventory year on year.
If you are seeking verifiable data on losses, look at Dennis van
Englesdorp et al's paper:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0004071
Dennis is a Pennsylvania State employed research scientist. Pettis is
USDA. Discounting their research paper as hyperbole is not a
legitimate argument. There is a lot of fluff out there, including the
apocryphal quote from Einstein, but this is serious business.
Do I think we are headed for the extinction of Apis mellifera? I can't
say for sure, but it doesn't look particularly good. Look at the
links. How many years do you think any agricultural industry can
survive while replacing 38% of its stock annually? Fruit growers in
Sichuan Province, China are already pollinating by hand, because there
are no honeybees there any longer. Apis species, on the other hand,
got through several million years without humans, so I would hope
they'd find a way to survive. The larger impact will be on beekeepers
and farmers growing bee pollinated crops. Can I predict that costs of
recovery will continue to rise indefinitely? If I could predict such
things accurately, I would be rich enough to not bother with such
discussions.
Are you correct in reading that the biggest impact is added cost? No,
you are not. The biggest impact is trillions of disappearing bees.
There may be a bounce back at some point. We should all be hoping
so. It is a huge risk to the US agricultural and food distribution
industry that the median age of beekeepers is getting much higher, and
the number of commercial pollinators has fallen dramatically over the
last decade. On that point, I think your interpretation is correct.
Many are simply too sick of the losses to continue. Costs to growers
reflect this. Have a look at aic.ucdavis.edu/research/bee-
conomics-1.pdf
" If they are, we would see it in the colony numbers *at some point*
wouldn't we? What point do you think that is? Would we see it in the
2009 colony count? 2010? When?" "If CCD were really a kill shot to
Apis mellifera, then I don't think beekeepers would be *able* to
replace their losses, no matter how hard they tried." So the fact
that we actually haven't been able to replace our losses domestically,
and we've had to resort to package bees imported from New Zealand and
Australia (and import their diseases, BTW) is not of concern to you, I
gather. Without those imports, we would have already seen the drop in
pollinating colonies.
Erroll Ozgencil
> Dennis is a Pennsylvania State employed research scientist. Pettis is
> USDA. Discounting their research paper as hyperbole is not a
Why do you say I'm discounting that paper?. This is the first you
mentioned of this research paper, so not only do I not dismiss it, I
*couldn't* have until after I learned of it. I just did a quick search
and couldn't find the words "extinction" or "disappearance." That's
what I think is hyperbole, and as far as I know the authors aren't
making that claim. I haven't read the whole thing yet. Do you think
they are?
One claim they did make is that beekeepers can recover from 50%
losses. It's in the third paragraph of the introduction where they are
discussing splits, "This practice permits beekeepers to build their
colony numbers back up by mid-summer even after suffering losses of
50% or more." To me, that strengthens the case for beekeepers being
able to replace losses at the current rate. That they have done so for
at least two years, and maybe three depending on how you count 2006,
is a matter of record.
The ability to recover is one of my two main points. The other is that
extending the current loss rate out forever is a worst case scenario.
That's because it would mean that CCD doesn't go away on its own, as
it (or something with identical symptoms) has in the past. It also
means that our efforts to treat CCD are, and will always be,
completely ineffective.
I don't think either of those last two are likely, but beekeepers have
demonstrated an ability to replace current losses. I think that adds
up to "honeybees are not becoming extinct" and "beekeepers will be
able to pollinate our crops."
Nothing glib or misleading about it. If you can argue that it's
mistaken, then I will listen. Honestly though, I don't see what your
argument is. What is the relevance of the cost data that you brought
up? What is the relevance of the demographic data on beekeepers?
> and we've had to resort to package bees imported from New Zealand and
> Australia (and import their diseases, BTW) is not of concern to you
I can make some guesses about why you don't like importing bees. I can
think of some follow up questions about those guesses. Some counter-
arguments about your likely responses come to mind. But maybe this
would work better if you just tell me why it's of concern to you.
sch...@resa.net
Hi Errol;
Now we're getting into the crux of the biscuit. The replacement of all
those failed colonies is where the difficulty lies. I think you
missed the point that van Englesdorp is making. Doing splits is a
gimmick, and when you split a colony that wasn't ready to swarm, you
take a colony that might have been heading for a healthy over-winter
and stress it out. A healthy colony at 40,000 - 60,000 bees can handle
a split, but when you're splitting colonies that have 25,000 bees,
you're begging for trouble. And when you split one healthy colony
into two not-very-healthy colonies, your colony count appears to stay
the same (which is very important if you bill pollination services by
the colony) but the number of actual bees does not rise at all. That
is what the paper's authors are saying when they say, "Unfortunately,
NASS reports do not give an indication of annual winter losses...,"
and that is why the USDA's numbers are deceptive, as well.
I mentioned that you were discounting the paper, but that research was
what was synopsized in the previous link. The numbers were culled
from that paper, and van Englesdorp was the cited source. They are
not making extinction warnings, but On the bee imports front, I am
just as uncomfortable relying on imported bees (and their imported
diseases) as I am relying on foreign oil. There are some things that
every discreet population should be capable of taking care of on their
own, and we're out of whack there.
The hyperbole of extinction seems to be a straw man here. You brought
it up, it would appear, as a way of making the argument that "CCD is
not a story of catastrophe." CCD looks an awful lot like a
catastrophe to the beekeepers who have suffered its ravages. There is
not the mutuality that is implied here: just because CCD may not cause
the extinction of bees does not mean it has not been catastrophic (see
Rick Smith's quote below). The reasons for concern among beekeepers
are many. Varroa has essentially wiped out feral colonies, so genetic
diversity and natural immunity development is suffering. Here's how
it's lining up: Feral colonies diminished-to-nearly-vanished,
commercial pollinators leaving the business due to losses, and an
average age of beekeepers that is growing steadily. In that regard,
we could easily have a larger catastrophe without having an
extinction.
The other problem is that the direction of this bee health thing right
now is South. There are fables about Henny Penny to make light of
those who predict problems unduly, but there are no stories that make
heroes of those who said "hey, you might want to quit killing off all
those Passenger pigeons, " or "if you don't adjust your practices,
you're going to make those Michigan Grayling extinct." Until we
figure this thing out, the time does not seem right for cavalier
attitudes.
The issue for our human food chain is a species under strain, and a
pollinating/beekeeping industry under immense stress. From a USA
today article from April 2008:
"According to Troy Fore, executive director of the American Beekeeping
Federation (ABF), the number of keepers who produce more than 6,000
pounds of honey annually has declined from 2,054 in 2005, the year
before keepers started experiencing colony collapse, to 1,820 last
year. Fore said ABF membership this year is down to about 1,100.
"Rick Smith, a commercial beekeeper in Arizona, said he once had 8,500
hives. He bottomed out this year at 1,280 because of colony collapse."
Maybe this economic downturn will be just the thing to lure folks back
to beekeeping, but the economics of the trade are pretty bad right
now. You say the beekeepers are up to the challenge, but the numbers
and my own personal contacts indicate that lots of them have had it.
Until we figure this thing out, the time does not seem right for
cavalier attitudes.
sch...@resa.net
Errol;
Now we’re getting down to the crux of the biscuit. You’ve missed what
the paper’s authors are saying: you can split colonies and appear to
have more colonies (very important if you bill pollination services
based on the number of colonies you bring), but you don’t actually
have more bees. That is why the authors said, “Unfortunately, NASS
reports do not give an indication of annual winter losses...” If you
split a colony that has an adequate number of bees (40,000 – 60,000),
you may get two healthy colonies, but in many cases they’re splitting
a colony with 25,000 or less, and what you get are two colonies that
will struggle to recover and have a difficult time over-wintering.
Hive splitting is itself stressful to a colony. Splits are a gimmick,
and they make the number of colonies appear to stay high.
“To me, that strengthens the case for beekeepers being able to replace
losses at the current rate.” Re-read the article carefully. What you
are saying is exactly the opposite of the point they are making. They
are not replacing losses, they are fudging the numbers. That is how
you can lose 750,000 – 1 million dead-out colonies and appear not to
have any loss. The no-loss statistic is deceptive. That’s what they’re
saying, and that’s what I’m saying. If the underlying health of the
broad population is in decline, splits don’t solve the problem, and
can actually end up contributing to it.
I didn’t mention extinction, and neither did the authors. I think you
mentioned it to make the case that “to this point CCD is not a story
of catastrophe but of beekeepers who are up to the challenge.” That
there is not a catastrophe if there is not an extinction is, however,
a false statement. CCD is a catastrophe to many beekeepers (see Rick
Smith below).
OTOH, the difficulty faced by those sounding the alarm is that there
are fables making fools of same (Henny Penny), but there are no iconic
stories making heroes of the folks who said “uh, maybe we shouldn’t be
killing so many of these Passenger Pigeons,” or, “if you don’t change
those over-fishing and logging practices, those Michigan Grayling are
going to become extinct.” The folks in the Sichuan province have put
the lie to the “it can’t happen here,” fallacy.
The conditions are these: due to Varroa, feral colonies are all but
gone, thus reducing natural genetic diversity driven immunity,
commercial stocks are being decimated, the average age of beekeepers
is way up, and total number of commercial beekeepers is going down.
The trend-lines are headed South. Guaranteed extinction? No. Cause
for alarm. Yup.
From USA Today, April 9, 2008:
“According to Troy Fore, executive director of the American Beekeeping
Federation (ABF), the number of keepers who produce more than 6,000
pounds of honey annually has declined from 2,054 in 2005, the year
before keepers started experiencing colony collapse, to 1,820 last
year. Fore said ABF membership this year is down to about 1,100.
Rick Smith, a commercial beekeeper in Arizona, said he once had 8,500
hives. He bottomed out this year at 1,280 because of colony collapse.”
Those kinds of losses can’t be covered by splits, and domestic
producers can’t keep pace. And that is where foreign bees come in.
But as with my problem with foreign oil, there are some things I
think that every discreet population should be able to handle on its
own. If you can’t, your autonomy is under threat.
You said you don’t see my argument. Here it is then. There are two
kinds of honeybees: wild and kept. The wild ones are basically gone,
so that leaves the domestic ones. We depend on beekeeping to make
possible a large percentage of our food supply. The numbers and the
accounts from the beekeepers I know indicate that lots of them are not
up to the challenge. Maybe these tough economic times will edge more
folks into commercial beekeeping, but the economics of the trade are
pretty bad themselves right now. Your words: “to this point CCD is not
a story of catastrophe but of beekeepers who are up to the
challenge.” I think that’s wrong on both counts.
From the Survey of Loss article:
“The total loss reported over the surveyed period was 35.9% (95% CI:
30.5–41.3%) with an average loss of 31.0% (95% CI: 30.6–40.9%). In
addition, the USDA surveyed 29 operations representing a total of
223,280 colonies in September of 2007. The total loss reported by the
USDA survey was 36.8% (95% CI: 19.2–54.3%) with an average loss of
34.5% (95% CI: 16.4–52.6%).”
I don’t think that those losses are sustainable by the beekeeping
industry over long periods. I don’t see an answer on the horizon.
The time is anything but right to be casual or dismissive about this
condition.
sch...@resa.net
did not appear on the forum, apparently lost in cyberspace. So I
wrote the second/seventh version, and now both are here.
Please pardon the duplicate post.
Erroll Ozgencil
you thought I meant something like, "What are those beekeepers
complaining about? They're doing just fine!" or something to that
effect, right? If somebody said that about me while I was struggling,
I'd be upset too. It sounds like you understand that's not what I
meant, but in case there's any doubt:
The catastrophe that I didn't (and still don't) think is happening is
the extinction of honeybees and the end of American agriculture (or
that part of it that depends on honeybees).
I was never writing about anything else.
The phrase "beekeepers who are up to the challenge," was meant as a
compliment. I was thinking (and still think) of them as keeping the
catastrophe from happening. I wanted to acknowledge them, like you
would firemen or others that were keeping you from harm. Since I don't
keep bees myself, and don't know anyone who does, CCD hasn't touched
me personally. I knew they must be having a difficult time, and now I
have a clearer picture of just how difficult. I wouldn't wish that on
anyone.
The reason I wrote about the (non) extinction of honeybees is that
some people believe that it is happening. If I was scared of something
that terrible, and somebody else knew that my fear was unfounded, I
would want them to explain it to me. I first learned of CCD from media
headlines that screamed, "up to 90% losses!" Sometimes the "up to" was
left out. So I started digging. I found out about the USDA's honey
report. Here was reliable data that I could use to see for myself if
it was really that bad. With each passing year, I have become more and
more convinced that it isn't. Not cavalier, just better informed.
So no, honeybee extinction is not a straw man. It's the (very
legitimate) topic of this thread and my blog post. I don't know that
we'll ever agree on it, but I'll probably talk about it differently
after this. I'm going to try and leave out all mention of beekeepers -
it might be tough to talk about honeybees without mentioning
beekeepers, but if it prevents this kind of misunderstanding, it'll be
worth the effort. I'll probably add to my conclusion and say something
like, "... so if CCD doesn't go away on it's own, as it has in the
past, and we are completely ineffective in treating it, then we might
have to import bees indefinitely."
You and I probably disagree about trade and importing bees (maybe more
than we disagree about what we thought we were arguing about - how's
that for irony!), but at least that would be a friendly disagreement.
It would involve trade, politics, and economics and go beyond the
scope of this newsgroup, though, and I think Nick is showing us the
door :)
sch...@resa.net
Angry? Not so much. It might seem like I'm ready to blow up, but I
have a long fuse. I can disagree with someone, even vehemently, but as
long as we're not calling each other names, it's still friendly.
Irritated? Sure. Overly sensitive? Guilty. I think the likelihood
is, though, that we agree on more than we disagree on. Sorry if my
hackles got up a bit there. I have been in very close contact with
many beekeepers over the past few weeks, months and years. Their pain
is very real to me. And my sentiment is, they're as important to
meadmaking as we are. I'd sure be bummed to see discussions of their
issues discouraged on this board. On the semantic front, I'd rate
where we are right now as a catastrophe, and honeybee extinction as a
cataclysm.
Ken
Dick Adams
> Erroll Ozgencil <erro...@gmail.com> wrote:
What we have here are two honest people both of whom have my
respect agreeing on a subject, but with different verbage.
Whatever is happening, the cost of honey is increasing and that
is a serious issue for Meadmakers. Hopefully I will moving home
to the Promised Land of North Carolina in the next few months.
Given the cost of honey, I am planning to start keeping bees.
But first, I'll need to learn beekeeping from scratch. One of
my objectives was to get my childbride to get into beekeeping.
Her response is not repeatable in a public forum.
Dick
shr...@cyberspace.org
> We first heard about Colony Collapse Disorder in 2006, now in early
> 2009 we have data from the USDA on honeybee population, production,
> and yield spanning 2006, 2007, & 2008. The number of producing
> colonies in the US was stable through 2007 (we even saw a slight
> increase that year), then fell 6% in 2008. More detail here:
>
>
> but I think an honest look at the data show that honeybees are not
> being "wiped out". Words like "extinction" or "disappearance" are just
> not accurate ways to describe CCD. I don't know how this will play out
> in the future, but to this point CCD is not a story of catastrophe but
> of beekeepers who are up to the challenge.
>
> Errollhttp://www.washingtonwinemaker.com/
I read a paper a while back that discussed the use of artificial
foundation and it's effects on CCD. If I recall correctly the author
had some diseased hives, and in an experiment set up a second yard
using strictly top bar hives. The TBH yard showed a marked reduction
in disease compared to the langstroth yard.
He speculated that artificial foundation made a more uniformly sized
bee, and as a result parasites, once adapted for that size of bee had
a more significant impact. I suspect that sanitary issues, like
contaminated hardware unknowingly getting swapped from one hive to
another to probably doesn't help CCD either. If that's the case that's
another feather in the cap of using the TBH instead, since there are
no frames, making cleaning old equipment less of a pain. (read as:
more likely to get done)
Regardless, honey production is secure in the long term. The African
bees have a higher production rate the the nicer local bee's, and they
will get to the east coast eventually. (without our help I might add)
Ultimately if the Euro-bee fails, the afro-bee will undoubtedly be
called to duty much as has already happened in south america. We will
just have to start breeding nicer bees from scratch.
I believe there is a bigger lesson to be learned by the USDA here
though. If it is true that langstroth hives, and more generally, human
intervention in the breeding and growth process has caused
insufficient diversity for a species such that it is experience
catastrophic collapse regardless of our best efforts: then we should
take heed, and consider product and genetic diversity a serious goal
in domestic agriculture.
Perhaps that is what the USDA is up to eh? I mean, if I wanted to sell
fire extinguishers, I would point at some dumbass who burnt down his
house already and say: "SEE! I told you! This is why you buy an
extinguisher, don't be like that dumbass over there..."
IOW, maybe cloning should be limited to a very small percentage of
domestic herds, and crops, with greater attention getting payed to
insuring the preservation of diverse and older genetic lines. Perhaps
beekeepers are poster children in that regard... Hmmm?
If it can happen to bees after only a century or two, and the only
factor was that we put them in the wrong shaped box, then imagine the
effects if we become heavily dependent on herds that are genetic
clones over the same time. There are similar lessons in viticulture.
It wasn't that long ago that Vinefera grew on it's own roots. And
something about a potato that ye' Irish may remember.
Anywho, just a few thoughts.
meds...@gotmead.com
wrote:
> Regardless, honey production is secure in the long term. The African
> bees have a higher production rate the the nicer local bee's, and they
> will get to the east coast eventually. (without our help I might add)
> Ultimately if the Euro-bee fails, the afro-bee will undoubtedly be
> called to duty much as has already happened in south america. We will
> just have to start breeding nicer bees from scratch.
>
You raise an interesting point.
We already have Africanized bees in Florida.
Has the South American beekeeping community suffered from CCD in the
same way as the North Americans? My understanding of Africanized bees
is quite limited, but I understand they are much more difficult to
manage and more prone to swarm. Still, if they can replace the feral
populations of bees in this country and maintain pollination even if
the European bees continue to dwindle, then instead of thinking of
them as "Killer Bees" we should be thinking of them as "Rescuer Bees"
and perhaps they should not be discouraged. Is there any data about
CCD and the Africanized bees?
Medsen
beesb...@gmail.com
Africanized bees do not suffer from mites as do the euro bees. REASON
being, they swarm more often. When a hive swarms there is a break in
the brood cycle. This does not do well for the mite. It also does not
do "well" for commercial beekeeping. It is hard to make a honey crop
if your bees are always splitting. Impossible no, but hard yes. ALSO
there is the whole nasty attitude, these bees are nasty.
The africanized bees seem to have hit kind of wall as far as moving
north goes. The need that nice more weather to be able to split as
often as they do. But they will adjust and keep moving, there is no
doubt of that. Maybe the more North they move the nicer and more
productive they will be become.
OK no more doom and gloom, fact is there are breeds of bees that
hold up to the pressures of modern beekeeping (ick).
The more they look into CCD they more issues come up. It is more then
one thing causing this, 1. moving bees (stressfull), 2. chemical build
up in wax/comb(ick, bad) this comes from inside and outside
sourcesQUIT SPRAYING! 3. mono croppin, one pollen source is not
healthy, modern ag has caused this BUT don't see a way around it. if
you won't to feed the billions of people on this earth.
What is being done, old comb is being tossed out, rule of thumb 25%
replaced in each hive each year.
Moving bees, STILL happens no way around this. Almonds for example
only grow in CA, they need 1/2 the bees in the whole country for a 3
week period to pollinate this crop. CA can't sustain that many bees
all year long so bees are moved in and out.
Mono-cropping, pollen is being given to hives, either substitute or
other so there are other pollon sources for the brood.
Hygenic bees, there are traits out there that can deal with the mites
etc.. on there own without having to treat (as often, or ever)
Yes there is some light, although dim it is there.
Dick Adams
And that is that when we move she can keep 5 to 10 hives to keep
down "our" cost of honey. In response, she is threatening to
leave me and cut off the health insurance benefits I get from her.
Let's see you is a better negotiator. Anyone betting on me?
Dick