# 30% overwintering losses...is that accurate?



## Matt903 (Apr 8, 2013)

I keep hearing and reading that the national average of colony losses for is 30% In fact I think it is the most common quoted figure on bee source when talking about overwintering, mites, etc. Where did this figure come from? Who reported the losses? Who compiled this information and from what beekeepers did they get if from? I think these questions are important when quoting statistics. Is it just large commercial operations that reported these type of losses? Was it just the guys who pollinate almonds that were surveyed? No one doing any study has ever asked me what my overwintering losses were. None of my bee keeping friends has ever been surveyed. Could the 30% be higher? Could it be lower? My point is, I think it really depends on who you ask and who is doing the asking when talking about colony losses. I am sure if a study was sponsored by a company that produces mite treatments, the figure would be high. I would say if a study was done by a treatment free organization, the figure would be lower. Is there anyway to accurately gauge colony losses?


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

If you have ever registered hives with the state, you will get a few requests for reports or surveys (honey and bees) from Bee Informed Partnership and the USDA. I now get a survey from BIP every week or two. Some reports show the breakdown of respondents. Mostly the majority of hives reported are from commercial beekeepers and the majority of respondents are small hobbyists.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

I registered my apiary with the state of Tennessee, but I have never got any survey requests.

If you do want to participate in the Bee Informed Partnership programs, here is a signup page:
http://beeinformed.org/participate/


----------



## orthoman (Feb 23, 2013)

Very, very good questions. I have only been keeping bees for only a couple of years but I would say my biggest frustration with beekeeping is the plethora of bad information that gets passed around - and it gets repeated over and over until it becomes "fact".

I have also heard 30% losses over and over again but I ask myself Why? What were/are the variables? How does it related to my beekeeping practices.


----------



## Matt903 (Apr 8, 2013)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I registered my apiary with the state of Tennessee, but I have never got any survey requests.
> 
> Radar,
> 
> ...


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I would be curious about whether the poll participant was or expected to be eligible for insurance for losses.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

The state of Tennessee has exactly (1) person in the State Apiary Inspector department. Mr Studer is a busy guy no doubt. 

I suspect that preparing voluntary surveys is very low on his priority list.


----------



## Jon B (Apr 24, 2013)

I receive a survey each year from the USDA. On several occasions I have done phone surveys with the Utah Department of Agriculture. I also signed up with and completed online surveys with www.beeinformed.org. All these surveys are volunteer so its hard to say what percentage of beekeepers are included in the survey. When it comes to hive loss the number that matters most is your own hive count.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

the bip surveys are only looking at about 20% of the managed colonies in the country, and the data is submitted voluntarily and not corroborated. it's not perfect but probably the best thing we have as far getting some idea about average losses. scroll to the bottom of this link for a summary of the last eight year's reported losses:

http://beeinformed.org/results/colony-loss-2013-2014/


----------



## AstroBee (Jan 3, 2003)

Averaging the "red" bars in the link gives 26.7% average over the past 8 years.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

Based on show of hands at our club meetings I *think* that 30% is a good ballpark figure for hobbyists at least. Is it accurate overall - heaven knows.

However, if you make all the right moves you can probably beat the average. That is kind of the point of averages isn't it.


----------



## burns375 (Jul 15, 2013)

Our sideliner oldtimer with 200 hives or so lost 13% last winter, he averages about 8-10%. He feeds etc. He knows what hes doing. He knew Walter T. Kelley very well 

KBA 2014 Hive Losses

Most statistics are subjective. The scope of the study must be understand. A good statistic/variable to know is hives weight in october and number of years of experience. 

A simple example is.

Deer accidents are up, so someone may assume the populations is larger. However, perhaps they did not mention roadways in the area increased 30% and amount of traffic increased 40%.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

in northern ny it was well over 30% more like 60+%, some real experienced keepers lost 90 to 100%. the winter was too long without any break. most lost hives still had honey in them.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Matt903 said:


> Is there anyway to accurately gauge colony losses?


Our provincial extensions apiarist runs a survey each spring to determine the overall colony losses for that winter. The winter of 2012/13 surveyed 40% losses, the winter of 2013/14 surveyed a 20% +/- losses.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Matt903 said:


> I am sure if a study was sponsored by a company that produces mite treatments, the figure would be high. I would say if a study was done by a treatment free organization, the figure would be lower. Is there anyway to accurately gauge colony losses?


I'm sure that the BIP figures are about as accurate as any reported figures can be. It all comes down to how accurate and honest the respondents are and how thorough the questioners are at asking their questions.

The way I see it, one should not be all that impressed by one year's report, but by an accumulation of reports for many years. That could tell us something. One year's report doesn't really say all that much. Especially when those losses aren't felt economically by agriculture. No one didn't get the bees they needed to pollinate their orchard or produce farm.

Always remember, figures don't lie, but liars can figure.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

breakdown by state on % loss 2013-2014:

http://beeinformed.org/2014/06/state-by-state-colony-loss-2013-2014/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

my losses were 21.05% last winter compared to my state average of 23.05%.


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

58% avg in Ontario last winter. 58k of 100k colonies reported dead.

I think it's a good idea to plan on 30% loss and be pleasantly surprised if you do better than that.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

zhiv9 said:


> I think it's a good idea to plan on 30% loss and be pleasantly surprised if you do better than that.


yes. and as mike palmer has been advocating for years one should incorporate a plan for making increase to at least replenish any losses and possibly more to sell surplus bees.

after my 21.05% loss last winter i was able to make 107% increase mostly from splitting the least productive hives along with catching a few swarms. 13 of those colonies became surplus to me and were sold. plus at least 6 -7 swarms were allowed to escape into the nearby woods.

i'm at 18 colonies at this time going into winter with one or two of those being marginal as to whether or not they'll survive. that's just about where i want to and need to be.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

mathesonequip said:


> in northern ny it was well over 30% more like 60+%, some real experienced keepers lost 90 to 100%. the winter was too long without any break. most lost hives still had honey in them.


Although I didn't lose any in the winter our spring weather was horrible in my area (wet and cold). Could it be that bees weakened by chemical treatments in the fall have a hard time making it through a rough winter?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Acebird said:


> Although I didn't lose any in the winter our spring weather was horrible in my area (wet and cold). Could it be that bees weakened by chemical treatments in the fall have a hard time making it through a rough winter?


It could be a small factor Brian, but my experience in wintering bees long before varroa treatments were used is that getting bees through the worst of the winter is only the first battle. The bigger one is getting good buildup conditions in the early spring so the "tweeners" start to grow and don't just dwindle away.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Acebird said:


> Could it be that bees weakened by chemical treatments in the fall have a hard time making it through a rough winter?


Disease pressures, notably nosema


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Amen, Jim. Used to be that March was the month when most colonies died. Because they starved. Couldn't get to honey right beside them. Or broke cluster because of warm temps and didn't get back into tight cluster when temps dropped.

Now, it seems, colonies can die just about any time of the year. I had a friend ask me what my Summer Loss was. What we are seeing is that colonies perish not only over Winter, but during the rest of the year too. Diligent beekeepers deal w/ losses earlier.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Just how you count losses is an iffy thing. I started this year with27 hives. Ended it with 40. did I have any losses or did I have increase.

Now I will tell you I produced over 400 queens. At one time had over 60 colonies. some sold some where lost. Did I have any losses now? The way I count it I did.I had around 95% losses of queens but that is not colonies. I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 15% loss of colonies. Most of those young nucs that either swarmed or absconded or whatever the heck it was. All I know is they jumped ship. It is bees that did not stay in my hives doing what I produced them to do. I lost hives to queen losses. I still do not think I have ever lost a single colony to diseases. Just far to many other ways to loose them to have to mess around with diseases I guess.

Now my goal for the year was 207 hives at this time. So did I take losses? If I say I have only 40 out of 207 then my losses where about 80%. Now that is how Uncle Sam does it. But I simply go with the greatest number of colonies I had subtract those sold and then factor the looses from the number of hives I still have. So I had about 60 sold some 15 of those lost about 5 and have 40 left. That gives me a loss of about 12.5%. And most of those where nucs absconding.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

You can't lose what you don't have. So, no, just because you didn't reach your goal, you didn't have losses.

Winterloss used to be more simple to determine. Before Winter one usually has some idea how many live colonies of bees they have. Come Spring one can fairly easily count how many are no longer alive. Then doing the math will result in the Winterloss number.

Nowadays it's a little more complicated. But the idea is the same. Start w/ X, subtract the live colonies from X and you have your loss number. When one does this may make a difference.

What are we counting losses for? And why aren't we counting survival?


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Mark I think you final comment is very close to a bullseye. I see losses are counted. but not increase. So lets say I lost 2 out of my original 27 hives in early spring. that is a loss. But then I increased to 60. And I seldom see any effort to track that increase.

Nationwide I see it like this. in fall of 2013 there may have been 2.7 million hives. with 30% average losses spring of 2014 makes it.1.89 million. BTU fall of 2014 shows 3 million hives. So where their really any looses or are losses and increase just the details of keeping bees? Queen lost and replaced is that a loss. a colony swarms but gets a new queen is that a loss. a hive succumbs to a disease and is replaced with a package. is that a loss? An attempt is made to increase and some hives are lost in the process final result is an overall increase. so are any losses sustained?

Sort of like shooting at a moving target to some degree. but in all gains must set side by side with losses for a clearer picture.


----------



## Jim 134 (Dec 1, 2007)

Acebird said:


> Although I didn't lose any in the winter our spring weather was horrible in my area (wet and cold). Could it be that bees weakened by chemical treatments in the fall have a hard time making it through a rough winter?


 I can only talk for central New England it was a terrible spring. (Cold & Wet & Cold) Bees did not really get going until second week in May the blossoms controlled by temperature were late. The blossoms controlled by sunlight were on time. Because of this the honey flow only stop for about 7-10 days long when it is usually 4 to 5 weeks 

BEE HAPPY Jim 134 

As mentioned before the best place to get information like this is at www.beeinformed.org


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

The average winter loss in Germany is about 16 %. 

At the beginning of 2011 about 695,000 bee colonies were registered. The next winter 2011/2012 22 % winter losses were reported. If you substract 22 % off the 695,000 colonies you end up with 560,000 colonies. Despite that and like a miracle 690,000 colonies were registered in Spring. 

Year after year there is a gap of 100,000 colonies average that somehow is filled...


----------



## Stephenpbird (May 22, 2011)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> Year after year there is a gap of 100,000 colonies average that somehow is filled...


Could it be that I pay an insurance premium per hive, despite having a little insurance of my own in the form of a nuc or two hidden around the apiary.


----------



## Marysia2 (May 23, 2014)

sqkcrk said:


> Or broke cluster because of warm temps and didn't get back into tight cluster when temps dropped.


Without knowing for sure, obviously, I felt that's what happened to my hive. They survived the ZERO degree temps of January and February, were fine on a warmish day February 17th...and were all dead by March 5. The hive looked like someone had pulled the plug and every bee just stopped in the middle of whatever they were doing. There was a cluster on one side of the hive, but other bees were on various frames, alone. No starvation, no heinies sticking out of cells, and there was well over 3 liters of honey left.

So what can we do about that particular scenario: sudden warm days in March where they go running around, then night falls and the temps quickly drop below 30 degrees...and they don't have time to re-cluster?


----------



## zhiv9 (Aug 3, 2012)

Marysia2 said:


> So what can we do about that particular scenario: sudden warm days in March where they go running around, then night falls and the temps quickly drop below 30 degrees...and they don't have time to re-cluster?


Locally adapted bees maybe? The darker bees don't seem to get as adventurous when things first start to warm up and won't raise much if any brood until pollen starts coming in.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

With maybe 6 million hives in the US 10 years ago if we had a loss of 30% per year we would be down to maybe a 1000 hives today and I am sure we have a few more than that. I personally lost 4 hives out of 40 so go down as a 10% loss. No one takes account of the 40 plus nucs I made in the spring and 15 in late summer to over winter as insurance against losses. Besides there is an article by Peter Loring Borst that shows how beekeepers in the early 19 hundreds who often came through the winter with 35 out of every 100 hives empty most of them took their losses in the fall by weeding out week colonies and making them up again in the spring
Johno


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

At least in Germany a lot of losses won't be reported, because the beekeepers are ashamed of it. The old beekeepers tell you, that if you loose more than 3 % over winter, you are not a beekeeper. The official beekeeping schools here say: the beekeepers are to dumb to treat. Literally. And so on. So I find a lot of beekeepers loosing their hives secretly and building back up to the reported numbers during the summer. The losses must be higher than reported because it is a standard management to make splits and nucs all summer, mostly the same number as the production hives. This way the number of bee colonies would double each and every year. Instead the number decreases year after year. Although a massive amount of new beekeepers start beekeeping. It even became an industry to teach newbies. Numbers go down. 

Certainly it would be death to the beekeeping business if have to plan for 30 % loss every year. This is way too much to take.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

i have explained to the beginners who purchased nucs from me this year that losses are to be expected and i'll be helping them next spring to learn how to make increase.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Now days people get paid for their losses. It's called ELAP. What if people got paid, say Jan. 1st or maybe May 1st, for each live hive? Then there would be no losses.

Kinda like reinforcing good behavior. You get further ahead catching someone being good and praising them for it than by catching someone being bad and condemning them for it. But it would never fly.


----------



## Michael Palmer (Dec 29, 2006)

I don't really know what to say about the BIP loss reports. I don;'t mean to be a PITA, but I've not seen losses like they are reporting. I see a long cold win ted every year. Right through the CCD episodes and with last year's reported "severe" winter I'm not seeing such losses. Not poo-pooing anything. Not trying to start a fight of claim my bees are perfect...But...I had a 12.5% winter loss, and a bit of dwindling due to the delayed spring, but no losses anywhere near 30%. Just my usual 15%. I have too many bees to micro-manage every colony, and still no losses as reported by BIP. 

So, where are you all getting your stocks? How are you managing those stocks to prevent swarming? How are you dealing with varroa? How are you insuring the colonies under your management actually have a viable population of young bees and enough feed to carry them through until spring?

I've been listening to this debate for years, and still don't understand where the results are coming from.. I won't say I don't believe the reports, but I question the whole survey protocol. I'm just a beekeeper managing my bees as I always have for 40 years and don't understand the losses folks report.


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

I often wonder if the stats are being skewed by many small keepers with one to say four hives, where a single loss will be a 100% loss for a one hive keeper and I know of a 4 hive keeper who lost all 4. Not sure if they were TF or not? But I have just managed to breed my bees to handle neonics and it looks like the epa might shut that down so all my breedind work is to no avail.LOL
Johno


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Michael Palmer said:


> Just my usual 15%.


very nice michael, and no doubt experience and sound management are big factors.

i made a suggestion to bip some time back and perhaps others suggested it as well, at any rate it looks like they are going to incorporate the experience factor into their set of results.

it's the idea of 'hive years'. in other words you score each beekeeper for the number of hives kept over the number of years and come up with a number that reflects the experience level.

for example if someone kept 100 hives for ten years they would have 1000 hive years. likewise someone who has kept 4 hives for 2 years would only have 8 hive years.

i wouldn't be surprised if you rank in the highest percentile michael, and i wouldn't be surprised if there is an inverse correlation between loss rate and hive years.


----------



## Stephenpbird (May 22, 2011)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> At least in Germany a lot of losses won't be reported, because the beekeepers are ashamed of it. The old beekeepers tell you, that if you loose more than 3 % over winter, you are not a beekeeper.


I can't agree more. When I started beekeeping I lost every hive for two years running (as you know Bernhard). I still hear "that if you loose more than 3 % over winter, you are not a beekeeper." I have kept an eye on these beekeepers apiaries to get a true idea of loses and to find out what I was doing wrong. Last year the nearest apiary to me had 19 hives going into winter and 3 in spring. But he says he has still has loses of "less than 5% a year"!!!


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Stephenpbird said:


> I still hear "that if you loose more than 3 % over winter, you are not a beekeeper."


The worst thing you can do in your life is to be affected by someone placing a label on you. How many times do you hear the label "beehaver" thrown around on BS? Smile at the fool placing this label on you and do what you think is best.

Mark posted:


> And why aren't we counting survival?


I am. I do. What do you do Mark? I have heard you tell that you have about 500 colonies. Is it hard for you to keep 500 hives going year to year?


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> How many times do you hear the label "beehaver" thrown around on BS?


Not much lately. Have you been getting PMs lately? 

Annually, just like the number of bees expands and contracts, my colony count does too.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

Stephenpbird said:


> had 19 hives going into winter and 3 in spring.


I see this, too, and the number of people wanting to buy colonies in Spring is huge. It became a big business to import package bees from Italy and France. Also I find commercial beekeepers selling colonies in Spring, which I don't understand, because you can get a lot of money for honey you make with this colonies, so why selling them in Spring? The price for one colony in Spring is 190 $ for ten frames of bees.

It is standard management to make the same number of splits as you have productive hives. Not all queens are good, so at least I weed 30 % of those insufficient queens and thus splits.

Before winter I go through all hives and weed out anything that doesn't fit my picture of how a hive has to look like. Hives with few stores: weeded. Hives with too much varroa: weeded.
And so on. 

A huge fluctuation/turnover year after year. As is with individual bees inside a hive, the turnover can be seen there, too. You can find this fluctuation described in older books, centuries ago, too. So this is not new. But what I find is, it is increasingly more difficult to keep the numbers. It is getting more and more difficult. 

Instead of counting individual hives (what is an individual hive? The queen?) we need a measurement to measure the fluctuation and the energy that is put into the turnover. Otherwise you can't show the struggle-trouble that we are in.

Bernhard


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

johno said:


> I often wonder if the stats are being skewed by many small keepers with one to say four hives, where a single loss will be a 100% loss...
> Johno


I would not say results are skewed. This is simply the reality of averages. To be able to accurately apply averages to any report you need to have an understanding of this. If the average is in fact 30% you can reasonably expect that not one single individual suffered exactly 30% losses. 30% is the average of losses suffered. There are 3 beekeepers. Each has 100 hives. two suffer no losses one looses all. that is a 33.3% loss suffered. Of 300 hives 200 remain.

There are 100 beekeepers each has 4 hives. and one beekeeper that has 400 hives. The larger beekeeper folds up shop and let's his hives die. That would represent a 50% loss for that sample.

An average only becomes reliable as the sample becomes huge. and that woudl required thousands or even tens of thousands individual samples. At some point any individual sample has little ability to alter the average. and only then is an average reliable.

BIP for exampel gains it's averages from somewhere around 400 samples. not nearly enough to be considered reliable. Maybe 4000, or even better 40,000. and that is 40,000 beekeepers not hives.

So just keep it all in perspective.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Daniel Y said:


> BIP for exampel gains it's averages from somewhere around 400 samples. not nearly enough to be considered reliable.


:scratch: Not sure where you got that "400" from.


Here is what BIP says about the 2013-2014 year ...


> For the 2013/2014 winter season, 7,183 beekeepers in the United States (U.S.) responded. Collectively, they managed 564,522 colonies in October 2013, 21.7% of the country’s 2.6 million colonies.
> 
> http://beeinformed.org/results/colony-loss-2013-2014/


You can find similar statistics for other years at their site, too.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

the survey is more accurate as it gets bigger but at some point it is big enough for reasonable accuracy. that is what statistics is all about.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

yup, we need this kind of information to help determine trends and help us understand what we are seeing in our hives. If a beekeeper experiences a 40% loss, and the provincial wintering loss average is 10%, then that beekeeper should look at his losses differently than if the provincial losses are 40%. 
Some losses can be attributed to operational management, some losses can be attributed to "out of our control" circumstances like weather. Some losses can be used to help identify problems like treatment resistant issues or feed quality. 
This is why the more beekeepers who can take the time to contribute to these surveys the more accurate the survey will be and the more use it can be. Through the government, its all confidential.
Categorizing the losses between the number of hives operated is also a very useful stat to have


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> :scratch: Not sure where you got that "400" from.
> 
> 
> Here is what BIP says about the 2013-2014 year ...
> ...


I got it from their most recent survey report. They now do a monthly one. The one your are referring to is a different annual survey. If you divide your number by 12 you get about 598 monthly respondents as a comparison.

But let's look at your numbers 7,000 respondents representing 2.6 million colonies. If we average 100 hives per beekeeper those 7,000 represent 26,000 beekeepers. for an accurate average of 26,000 beekeepers you would need a data sample of about 260,000,000 responses. Even then it woudl only be roughly close to accurate.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

Ian said:


> Categorizing the losses between the number of hives operated is also a very useful stat to have


In the latest BIP survey results they added a Hive Year calculation. A hive year is one hive kept for 1 year. So if in your first year you kept 20 hives you would be credited for 20 hive years. They then showed results in comparison to respondents with over and under a certain number of hive years. It was interesting to look at the difference in management and results between the two. I do not consider the hive year calculation accurate based upon the information they asked for. they asked how many hives I currently manage and how long I have been keeping bees. For that survey the answers where 40 and 3 for a total of 120 hive years. Now I count the number of hives kept any single year by how many hives I end that year with. so for year 1 it was 4. year two it was 27 and year three it is 40. For a real hive year total of 71.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Daniel Y said:


> I got it from their most recent survey report. They now do a monthly one. The one your are referring to is a different annual survey. If you divide your number by 12 you get about 598 monthly respondents as a comparison.
> 
> But let's look at your numbers 7,000 respondents representing 2.6 million colonies. If we average 100 hives per beekeeper those 7,000 represent 26,000 beekeepers. for an accurate average of 26,000 beekeepers you would need a data sample of about 260,000,000 responses. Even then it woudl only be roughly close to accurate.


Any statements based on sample surveys are going to be inherently wrong/inaccurate. But what else is there to go on? It's an estimate which, if taken multiple times, annually perhaps, can show a trend. But everyone involved should know it has flaws and is a statistical sample. It's the best we can afford to do. Unless you want to donate a substantial portion of your vast wealth to fund a better, more wide spread, survey. Which will be flawed, inherently incomplete, too.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Ian said:


> Some losses can be attributed to operational management, some losses can be attributed to "out of our control" circumstances like weather. Some losses can be used to help identify problems like treatment resistant issues or feed quality.


I think you forgot one. Some losses can be attributed to common beekeeping practices.
For instance if you were a migratory beekeeper you are going to have losses simply because of the practice.


> This is why the more beekeepers who can take the time to contribute to these surveys the more accurate the survey will be and the more use it can be.


I think the most accurate survey is going to be one of your own apiary comparing what you did or did not do vs. what your losses or gains were. This keeps it local. Knowing what losses someone had in CA is not going to mean anything to someone in FL or NY. Knowing what a back yard beek's losses are is not going to mean anything to someone that is commercial and vice verse. It is even hard to compare one commercial operation to another because they are not that close together and even they do things differently. You can try to compare procedures but there are so many variables every where you go the accuracy is just not going to be there.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

You make some good points Brian. In our case the losses a migratory move may cost are easily trumped by the gains of wintering in a much more bee friendly climate. I have heard some claim a loss of 10% with each move but mine have never approached that. 
I see the subject of losses as being pretty relevant to those who overwinter in cold climates
and must rely either on the strength of their survivors or the purchase of nucs or packages to rebuild their numbers.
In the broader picture, though, "losses" are somewhat of a misunderstood term as the only truly relevant issues from a national perspective are these. Were there enough bees available for pollination needs and did beekeepers get bees back in all the boxes that they hoped to have? Beyond that, the issue gets political pretty quickly. A cursory reading of all the gloom and doom articles that are pumped out with some regularity would lead most reasonable people outside the industry to assume that honey bees are quickly becoming extinct. Though beekeeping certainly has it's challenges I think that's hardly the case.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

jim lyon said:


> A cursory reading of all the gloom and doom articles that are pumped out with some regularity would lead most reasonable people outside the industry to assume that honey bees are quickly becoming extinct.


I think the decline of any species is directly related to the lose of its natural habitat except for humans. I suspect we will destroy ourselves long before the honeybee or any insect dies out.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Acebird said:


> It is even hard to compare one commercial operation to another because they are not that close together and even they do things differently. You can try to compare procedures but there are so many variables every where you go the accuracy is just not going to be there.


When looking at our Canadian loss surveys, basically all the managed hives within our Provence is local, and as far out as comparing with Saskatchewan and Alberta. We share the same great prairie and many conditions. Now comparing with our Ontario, Quebec and Maritime friends, our comparisons are harder to relate too. So when someone is looking at these surveys for answers, they have to also know what they are reading. 

I think there must be more hobby beekeepers in the US than here in Canada. Even Randy Oliver commented on that point when he visited WInnipeg for our annual beekeeping convention. When reading our provincial results, I know for Im looking at beekeepers who keep 50 or more hives, with a large majority of beekeepers keeping hundreds to thousands. Not too many 5000 hive beekeepers in Manitoba, a few yes, but defiantly no 10,000 hive beekeepers.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

A follow up to Grahams question. copied and pasted from the report I received today.

366 Beekeepers reported in the latest BIP HiveCheck Survey.

My message is if you ant something like this to be more accurate. then participate. this is not a situation that everyone else is going to do it for you.

http://beeinformed.org/2014/10/bip-hivecheck-results-for-sept-16th-sept-30th/


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

Daniel Y said:


> A follow up to Grahams question. copied and pasted from the report I received today.
> 
> 366 Beekeepers reported in the latest BIP HiveCheck Survey.


was that nationally or for your region daniel?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Ian said:


> I think there must be more hobby beekeepers in the US than here in Canada.


Yes and there is a heck of a lot more people and cities in the US plus a vast amount of differences in the environment. What about migration? Is trucking bees long distances popular in Canada?


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

The BIP monthly surveys are only to see how other beekeepers manage hives each month. They don't deal with losses. That survey will come out April 1. I think that BIP's goal is to get enough feedback so that you can compare how you manage hives to others in your area. So far I'm in with a bunch (I didn't count but maybe 14) western states.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

squarepeg said:


> was that nationally or for your region daniel?


just got the report here, it's the national number for the bi-monthly 'hive check' survey.

http://beeinformed.org/2014/10/bip-hivecheck-results-for-sept-16th-sept-30th/


----------



## cg3 (Jan 16, 2011)

The HiveCheck survey is just a monthly management snapshot, newly started. 
Regarding the actual BIP survey- "For the 2013/2014 winter season, 7,183 beekeepers in the United States (U.S.) responded. Collectively, they managed 564,522 colonies in October 2013, 21.7% of the country’s 2.6 million colonies."
When looking at the results, you do have to read between the lines a little. Below the bar graphs are the raw numbers breaking the results down and, in fact, regardless of the catagory, beekeepers with more colonies have better survival rates than those with just a few. I still feel like there's valuable information to be gleaned from it.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

squarepeg said:


> was that nationally or for your region daniel?


National. I think this survey is a great idea but participation needs to get way up. I don't look at it so much as what it is right now. but what it can be. So I really hate to shoot down the accuracy of its results. but the truth is the truth. and I don't do it to say don't listen and ti is a waste of time. I do it to point out for it to have increased value it must have increased participation.


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

in agreement with cg3.


----------



## beedeetee (Nov 27, 2004)

The BIP results that I got this morning are national management results. The one that I got on September 30 was the monthly report on the western states (82 respondents). I believe that they started these monthly surveys this spring. Yes, over time I'm sure that they hope to get more participation. But this is apples and oranges. These small survey reports have nothing to do with hive mortality.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Acebird said:


> What about migration? Is trucking bees long distances popular in Canada?


There are beekeepers who move their hives out West into the Mildness of the coastal mountain ranges. 

The assumption that migration is a negative is not true.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Ian said:


> The assumption that migration is a negative is not true.


Not sure what you mean. Surely packing 400 hives or more on a trunk and running them across country is not the bees favorite pass time.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> I think you forgot one. Some losses can be attributed to common beekeeping practices.
> For instance if you were a migratory beekeeper you are going to have losses simply because of the practice.
> 
> I think the most accurate survey is going to be one of your own apiary comparing what you did or did not do vs. what your losses or gains were. This keeps it local. Knowing what losses someone had in CA is not going to mean anything to someone in FL or NY. Knowing what a back yard beek's losses are is not going to mean anything to someone that is commercial and vice verse. It is even hard to compare one commercial operation to another because they are not that close together and even they do things differently. You can try to compare procedures but there are so many variables every where you go the accuracy is just not going to be there.


The point of the BIP survey was to get a wider picture, not simply what happened in my back yard.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Acebird said:


> Not sure what you mean. Surely packing 400 hives or more on a trunk and running them across country is not the bees favorite pass time.


Having the bees sit in derth is not good for them either. Beekeeping has always been this way.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> The point of the BIP survey was to get a wider picture, not simply what happened in my back yard.


It is just my opinion that by getting the wider picture you introduce inaccuracies whereby the results are useless.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Ian said:


> Having the bees sit in derth is not good for them either.


Isn't that why bees store honey and isn't that why bees are so successful? They don't have the luxury to bring food to where they live from far away places like we do.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Ace this is where a bit of common sense kicks in. 
Trucking bees for two days is obviously a stress on the hives but if they are being moved to conditions that are favourable then...this is where your beekeeper common sense kicks in.


----------



## mathesonequip (Jul 9, 2012)

we seem to be at the start of a common sense dearth.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Acebird said:


> It is just my opinion that by getting the wider picture you introduce inaccuracies whereby the results are useless.


So what it seems we have here is useless anecdotal evidence, a report of what has happened in some one person's back yard, and lots of reports on what has happened in many people's back yards and out apiaries which may "introduce inaccuracies" which some see as useless also. So, everything we can learn through surveys and study is useless information?


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

sqkcrk said:


> So, everything we can learn through surveys and study is useless information?


No not everything. But data that results in inaccurate conclusions is certainly useless.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Inaccurate conclusions? Aren't the conclusions interpretations of reality based on the knowns and the unknowns and best guesses? So, knowing that, isn't that about as good as it's likely to be? It's all an illusion of reality. Reality is not easily measured and illustrated accurately. That is why we agree to accept certain things as close enough. What else are we to do?

Any suggestions on reaching a closer illustration of reality?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Acebird said:


> But data that results in inaccurate conclusions is certainly useless.


I suspect the problem is not necessarily the data, but the _assumptions _*you *are making.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I would hope that beekeepers who participate in these surveys would pass along accurate information. And I assume they would, as the ones participating in the survey would see the merit of having such information at hand.


----------

