# Everyone calm down, there is no “bee-pocalypse”



## jeffnmo

Blue that is a great article. It provides a balanced no panic view that should calm many concerns. Thanks


----------



## BigDawg

Lol, my statistics prof always told me that you could twist the numbers any way you want in order to support your view/agenda.

While it is true that the number of colonies has stayed roughly the same over the past 15 years since neonics came into vogue, it's also true that honey yields are at near record lows. For example, in 1998 there were about 2.6 million hives in the US that produced 2,220,000 lbs of honey. 2,005,000 lbs in 1999, 2,100,000 lbs in 2000. Since the mid 90's (around the time neonics were introduced), there has been a steady decrease in honey yields--a metric that many bee researchers use to measure bee health. Indeed 2013's harvest of only 1,480,000 lbs is the lowest US honey harvest in decades:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=37531&ref=collection


----------



## beedeetee

BigDawg said:


> my statistics prof always told me that you could twist the numbers any way you want in order to support your view/agenda.


...and it looks like you just proved it to be true. For those who struggle to understand BigDawg below is a link to help you understand his hometown and frame of mind. I live next to town #5 and have a farm next to town #1 so I'm used to interpreting the different language. Corporation = "bad company" and chemical = "bad substance". After you understand the language the conversation is easier.

http://blog.estately.com/2013/07/17-best-u-s-cities-for-hippies/


----------



## jim lyon

BigDawg said:


> Lol, my statistics prof always told me that you could twist the numbers any way you want in order to support your view/agenda.
> 
> While it is true that the number of colonies has stayed roughly the same over the past 15 years since neonics came into vogue, it's also true that honey yields are at near record lows. For example, in 1998 there were about 2.6 million hives in the US that produced 2,220,000 lbs of honey. 2,005,000 lbs in 1999, 2,100,000 lbs in 2000. Then starting in 2000, there has been a steady decrease in honey yields--a metric that many bee researchers use to measure bee health. Indeed 2013's harvest of only 1,480,000 lbs is the lowest US honey harvest in decades:
> 
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=37531&ref=collection


I agree.....with your first sentence. 
Honey production alone is a real, real poor indicator of bee health. I seriously doubt any bee researchers thinks this honey production data proves much of anything. Most everyone has strong hives early in the summer. Honey producers are at the mercy of changing farming practices and crops. The big picture is that hive numbers have decreased as bee pasturage has disappeared. Little CRP remains, pastures and alfalfa fields have steadily been replaced by corn and beans. Its just the new reality brought forth by high land valuations and high commodity prices. Now with the advent of almond pollination and high honey prices, more and more bees needing a place to summer are being squeezed into areas with less and less forage. 3/4 of a million hives in the Dakotas alone in 2012 for a combined yield average of less than 70 lbs. per hive.


----------



## BigDawg

I see, so since I live in Eugene, I must be a hippie, right? Lol, you know nothing about me Bruce, but feel free to cast aspersions and generalizations around if that makes you feel better! 



beedeetee said:


> ...and it looks like you just proved it to be true. For those who struggle to understand BigDawg below is a link to help you understand his hometown and frame of mind. I live next to town #5 and have a farm next to town #1 so I'm used to interpreting the different language. Corporation = "bad company" and chemical = "bad substance". After you understand the language the conversation is easier.
> 
> http://blog.estately.com/2013/07/17-best-u-s-cities-for-hippies/


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> While it is true that the number of colonies has stayed roughly the same over the past 15 years since neonics came into vogue, it's also true that honey yields are at near record lows.


Are you seriously saying that low honey yields are a direct cause of neonics?! I'm thinkin' it's time to create a neonic smiley, or "the neonic card"


----------



## BigDawg

Lol, no, I'm not saying that Barry. I don't think neonics are the single cause of anything (well, except hive kills from planter dust)--but I think they are having a negative impact on non-target pollinators like bees. It remains to be seen how big of an impact.



Barry said:


> Are you seriously saying that low honey yields are a direct cause of neonics?! I'm thinkin' it's time to create a neonic smiley, or "the neonic card"


----------



## jim lyon

Aspersions? Generalizations? Who says there is anything wrong with being a hippie? Arent they the folks that hate all chemicals, excepting, of course, the ones in their drug of choice?


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> I see, so since I live in Eugene, I must be a hippie, right?


Well you did say you smoke, and you have harsh words for the tobacco companies, so one has to assume you're not smoking cigarettes, cause that would be two-faced.


----------



## BlueDiamond

jim lyon said:


> Honey producers are at the mercy of changing farming practices and crops. The big picture is that hive numbers have decreased as bee pasturage has disappeared. Little CRP remains, pastures and alfalfa fields have steadily been replaced by corn and beans.


The anti-pesticide activist groups display little interest in the forage issue, but instead spend their time campaigning for bans on neonic seed treatments:
http://imageshack.com/a/img69/6596/pgzp.jpg 

Indeed, a few days ago on it's Facebook page Oregon's Xerces Society poked fun of Bayer & Syngenta's emphasis on improving bee health via better beekeeping and increasing bee forage:
Uploaded with ImageShack.com


----------



## beedeetee

Hey BigDawg, I hope there's no hard feelings. We have been kidding our Eugene friends (yes we have them) and relatives (yes we have them) and I saw your statistics post. I actually went to the Oregon Country Fair again couple of years ago. This year we just drove by on our way back from the coast to view the spectacle.


----------



## BigDawg

No problem Bruce! Eugene is indeed hippie heaven, but that's one of the things I kind of like about it. I can assure you that if you ever saw a photo of me you would never use my name and the word "hippie" in the same sentence again! 



beedeetee said:


> Hey BigDawg, I hope there's no hard feelings. We have been kidding our Eugene friends (yes we have them) and relatives (yes we have them) and I saw your statistics post. I actually went to the Oregon Country Fair again couple of years ago. This year we just drove by on our way back from the coast to view the spectacle.


----------



## BigDawg

Guilty Barry! I do smoke the occasional cigar--like 5 or 6 a year, but my profession is not one that allows for smoking anything "Eugenian." 



Barry said:


> Well you did say you smoke, and you have harsh words for the tobacco companies, so one has to assume you're not smoking cigarettes, cause that would be two-faced.


----------



## ArtSmart

BlueDiamond said:


> ... actually increased slightly since CCD hit in 2006


 Don't mean to ruin "pesticide lobby" parade here but what does it prove? That neonicotinoids have no affect on bees? You can do better than that.

It would be interesting to see statistics which would show how much money has been spent historically to maintain these numbers. Naturally if a commercial bee keeper looses half of his/her bees he or she is going to build it back up, but it is not going to be free. If there is demand for bees it is going to be filled, the question is how much it is going to cost. The only thing that this study proves is that so far commercial beekeepers have been able to keep up with the demand. Barely. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that agricultural output of plants requiring artificial pollination has grown in the same time period? The number of pollinators per unit of aforementioned product has decreased despite all the efforts. I wouldn't celebrate just yet. 

Since we are analyzing the total numbers of colonies lets see what is going on in not managed colonies? Are they numbers being affected? There is really no non-managed colonies left. What does your statistics say about that?

I'm not here to prove that pesticides alone (whichever flavor they might be) are the only cause to blame for decimating bee population. Just don't kid yourself, it is decimated. I think it is safe to assume that pesticides are playing a big role in it. So far commercial bee keepers have been able to keep up with the demand. But I would guess that there is going to be a breaking point when throwing money at the problem is not going to be enough.


----------



## jim lyon

Bee kills from pesticides have been going on for decades. Nothing new there at all. A short history lesson might clarify things a bit:
http://www.beeculture.com/storycms/index.cfm?cat=Story&recordID=541
While I wont agree with the term "decimated" in describing the bee industry I will agree that for lots of different reasons the bee industry faces a challenging and uncertain future, but then I remember my father telling me the same thing in the 1960's. "Get some education", he told me, "I dont think this beekeeping business is going to last much longer." That was nearly 50 years ago.


----------



## RiodeLobo

t:
You know I would be much more tolerant of hippies, if they would only bathe. Eugene is a nice place, but the negatives out way the positives by far.

PS if you have an opportunity to go out for dinner in Eugene this is very high on the list. Beppe & Gianni's Trattoria http://www.beppeandgiannis.net/


----------



## BigDawg

Actually BlueDiamond, it would appear that the AIA and USDA don't agree with your rosey outlook on the state of the bees in the U.S.:

"Preliminary survey results indicate that 31.1% of managed honey bee colonies in the United States were lost during the 2012/2013 winter. *This represents an increase in loss of 9.2 points or 42% over the previous 2011/2012 winter’s total losses that were estimated at 21.9% (Figure 1)*. This level of loss is on par with the 6 year average total loss of 30.5%2.

*On average, U.S. beekeepers lost 45.1% of the colonies in their operation during the winter of 2012/2013. **This is a 19.8 point or 78.2% increase in the average operational loss compared to the previous winter (2011/2012), which was estimated at 25.3%. *

http://beeinformed.org/2013/05/winter-loss-survey-2012-2013/


----------



## rhaldridge

jim lyon said:


> Aspersions? Generalizations? Who says there is anything wrong with being a hippie? Arent they the folks that hate all chemicals, excepting, of course, the ones in their drug of choice?


Hey now... I'm an ancient hippie, though it's been several decades since I flew the freak flag on a regular basis. (Short hair, no tie-dye in my closet, don't own a pair of sandals, etc.) Hippies are like everyone else, there are smart ones and dumb ones. 

Unfortunately for the brand, it's mainly the dumb ones who get the press. It's that way for most minorities, isn't it?


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Actually BlueDiamond, it would appear that the AIA and USDA don't agree with your rosey outlook on the state of the bees in the U.S.:
> "Preliminary survey results indicate that 31.1% of managed honey bee colonies in the United States were lost during the 2012/2013 winter.


I'm not aware of any worsening situation developing with the national bee supply. Ditto in regard to the prevalence of CCD. In fact, in this July 1, 2013 article Dennis Vanengelsdorp said: "But in the last two years in the U.S. we haven’t seen a lot of Colony Collapse Disorder, although we’ve been looking." http://moonmagazine.org/dennis-vanengelsdorp-why-we-need-bees-2013-07-01/ So somehow CCD has become less of an issue despite greater use of neonics and GMO crops than ever before.


----------



## gmcharlie

Big dawg, do you recall the reasoning the numbers changed from the previous year?? I sure do.... no spring, straight to summer longer breeding for mites, caused a higher might load than I have ever seen in sept...... the mites had an extra 2 months to multiply going into winter. and one of the longest latest springs we have seen around here. pretty much the story everywhere.

Ask this question, if you think we have a bee crisis, how many people that want bees don't have them?? the answer there is about zero.... if you want them, they are easy to come by for anybody....... hardly a shortage when the supply is there.


----------



## jeffnmo

Dawgl interesting study. Thanks for the link, just remember you can twist those numbers anyway you want and on top of that they're government numbers.


----------



## Gino45

"While it is true that the number of colonies has stayed roughly the same over the past 15 years since neonics came into vogue, it's also true that honey yields are at near record lows."

Perhaps this is because so many have discovered that the easy money is in the ever expanding almond pollination in California, while the revenue per pollinating hive is way high also.


----------



## Daniel Y

gmcharlie said:


> Big dawg, do you recall the reasoning the numbers changed from the previous year?? I sure do.... no spring, straight to summer longer breeding for mites, caused a higher might load than I have ever seen in sept...... the mites had an extra 2 months to multiply going into winter. and one of the longest latest springs we have seen around here. pretty much the story everywhere.
> 
> Ask this question, if you think we have a bee crisis, how many people that want bees don't have them?? the answer there is about zero.... if you want them, they are easy to come by for anybody....... hardly a shortage when the supply is there.


Not true. I sold two hives last spring. Both to people more than three hours away. both claimed they could not find bees otherwise.

It is common advice for people to order their bees early or they may not get them.

This past winter there was a shortage of colonies for almonds in California many contracts where not filled or shorted to get colonies spread around enough. Few groves got the number of colonies they wanted.

What bees are available are only available by direct and intense effort. entire businesses are based upon producing bees alone. Replacement is not increase. drastic losses do not result in increase even if the number of hives are greater. it is called compensation. keeping more hives in anticipation of the increased losses expected. that is not increase. and it is anything but an indication that the situation with bees is getting better.

If you visited someone in December and found a decorated tree in their house. then returned a year later and still saw a tree in their house. you might be lead to believe they always have a tree in their house. Or you can apply a bit of common knowledge and see the truth.


----------



## jim lyon

The availability of one or two hives hardly speaks to the nationwide bee supply. Check the classifieds in the ABJ during the winter months where whole truck loads of bees are being offered for sale coming out of the almonds. For those in the western US there are opportunities galore for buying large numbers of hives in March at pretty fair prices, yet finding someone who wants to mess around with reselling just a couple of hives may well be a bit difficult.


----------



## camero7

On the east coast this spring bees were in short supply. this was mainly due to the weather and the failure of package producers to supply the bees already contracted for. I could have sold many more than the 200 nucs I sold this spring. But that does not mean there is a bee shortage. It just means the supply was bottle-necked on the east coast.


----------



## jim lyon

camero7 said:


> On the east coast this spring bees were in short supply. this was mainly due to the weather and the failure of package producers to supply the bees already contracted for. I could have sold many more than the 200 nucs I sold this spring. But that does not mean there is a bee shortage. It just means the supply was bottle-necked on the east coast.


Agreed. A coast to coast move is both expensive and stressful on the bees and moving packages coast to coast is even worse.


----------



## Daniel Y

Jim, you are the one that set the number at Zero. two is infinitely greater than zero. The danger of using absolutes. Also the shortage of thousand of colonies for almonds constitutes far greater than my two hives. But again you said zero. I know for a fact that is wrong by at least two hives.

The article linked to itself admits that the beekeeper has compensated for the problem. not that a problem does not exist. with the current production of colonies why is the count not 15 million hives. if you look at the graph in fact colony numbers have fallen. that the writer wants to say that is not a decrease does not change the fact it is a decrease. Place that graph next to one showing colonies produced. I believe you will find that even though colony production has increased, actually colonies have decreased. so there is a loss masked in the fact that hives are being replaced. that they where lost in the first place is the problem. The article mentions that less than one third of beekeeper where capable of making the adjustment. and says it like that is a good thing. approx 3.25 million colonies in 1990 and barely over 2.5 million now. During that same period the demand for bees in California was born. that demand last I heard was 1.8 million colonies per year. meaning that only 700,000 hives fill the roll of over 3 million in 1990. the rest exist to serve California Almonds. Most likely where produced to do so and are disposed of when they are finished. So I am seeing the possibility that the true numbers are a decline from 3.25 million to 0.7 million. And that does not factor in the losses that are replaced issue. If I did it probably means there is a loss more like 15 million colonies.

So take every hive produced since 1990 and count how many are left now. that gives you the number of hives lost. And that is really the only honest way to count it. That would be dead obvious to anyone keeping bees and measuring if they are succeeding or failing. They would call growth growth. they would call keeping up keeping up and they would cal loosing loosing. This article calls loosing no problem.


----------



## jim lyon

Daniel Y said:


> Not true. I sold two hives last spring. Both to people more than three hours away. both claimed they could not find bees otherwise.


this is your quote not mine Daniel. My response is that it dosent speak to the nationwide supply of bees. It's a big picture and someone's inability to find two hives when they want is hardly relevant


----------



## beedeetee

Back in the mid 1980's when I was first getting packages, you had to order early or they were sold out. At least through our suppliers around here. Then queens were sold out until mid-May usually.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> .. hardly a shortage when the supply is there.

In response to the above, DY wrote:


Daniel Y said:


> Not true. I sold two hives last spring. Both to people more than three hours away. both claimed they could not find bees otherwise.


This transaction is evidence that the demand for bees was *fulfilled*! The customer was looking for bees, found them, purchased same. 

Why would anyone think this is evidence of a bee shortage? :scratch: :s


----------



## WLC

At what point should we say that there is a 'beepocalypse'?

Although overwinter losses are at about 30%, how far away are we from a crossover point where losses exceed increases to such an extent, that there's no way to meet demand?

Or, just as bad, at what overwinter loss rate is beekeeping no longer profitable?

I'm sure that those of you who do know your own margins have a ballpark loss rate in mind that would qualify as the beepocalypse.

Is it 35%? 40% maybe?


----------



## Daniel Y

I went back to crunch some numbers. the only accounts fo the period from 2006 to 20012 or 6 years. looking at the graph the average number of hives per year during that period is 2.5 million. You can find source after source that readily admits that 30% of all colonies are lost per year on average. that means of 2.5 million hives 825,000 are lost every year. That is nearly half of all hives being sent to California. 825,000 times 6 is 4,950,000 hives add that to the 2.5 million that where started with in 2006 and you have 7,450,000 hives. Way do we only have 2,500,000 in 2012? Nearly 5 million hives produced to hold even at 2.5 million hives that survive. and yet this can be claimed to not be a problem? And that is only counting 6 of the 22 years included in the chart. Worse is that for whatever reason and I have my suspicions what they are. this is actually listened to by the very people sustaining the losses. 30% losses are not bad. be grateful it is not 50%. It is not a crisis unless you lost everything with no hope of ever getting it back. That is a great plan.


----------



## Daniel Y

Rader Sidetrack said:


> > .. hardly a shortage when the supply is there.
> 
> In response to the above, DY wrote:
> 
> 
> This transaction is evidence that the demand for bees was *fulfilled*! The customer was looking for bees, found them, purchased same.
> 
> Why would anyone think this is evidence of a bee shortage? :scratch: :s




Because they said there was a shortage. I do not believe I filled the demand for every person that did not find hives.

I did not include this in my previous post. but at least one of them did not in fact get all the hives they had set out to get due to the increased cost in due to travel to get them. so no the demand even to the two I sold to was not fullfilled. But that is due to issues that go deeper than I think an internet forum is appropriate for. It complicates the discussion and only leaves fodder for the disruptive to chew on. not that they will not imagine such reason all on their own. I could simply say that I know for a fact from personal experience that the demand for hives was not met. and just leave it at that. I think it ludicrous to claim otherwise. I think it is ludicrous to claim there is not a crisis with loss of bees. It actually shocks me that such a comment will be given this much creditability in these forums.

Do beekeepers really think that loosing one third of their hives per year is not a problem? I increased by 400% since last January and I consider that low of an increases a problem. Had I been beer prepared it would have been easily twice that. As it turns out I have need for twice that. again the demand not met.

You make up your mind about what a problem is. All that does is allows me to judge how valuable your opinion is.


----------



## gmcharlie

Danial, as Jim mentioned poor customers does not highlight a shortage, nor does a bottelneck due to weather. Reality is bees take a little to produce, but if you place your order you will get bees, period. Shortage in almonds is not a shortage of bees. Its a problem with contractors not paying the right price. Peroid. raise it to a price its worthwhile, and bees come out of the woodware ....... Right now with trucking high poor relases from yards and the effort it takes to get bees ready that early, beeks are saying 150 a hive is not worth it.......
Has nothing to do with them not avalible......


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> At what point should we say that there is a 'beepocalypse'?
> 
> Although overwinter losses are at about 30%, how far away are we from a crossover point where losses exceed increases to such an extent, that there's no way to meet demand?


I have no idea what the definition of a beepocalypse is. Its hardly scientific and seems mostly a clever description wouldnt you say WLC? Clearly there was a shortfall in the almonds this year and that is one yardstick, though it is, historically, a new one without much of a history to compare. Beyond almonds, though, there is somewhat of a competition for other pollination contracts. The point I am trying to make and which is getting laughably twisted is that the bee market is a pretty large and diverse one with spot shortages and surpluses being the norm for as many years as I can remember. If someone had shown up in one of our Texas yards this spring with a pickup load of foundation I would have traded them even up for brood just to give the bees a little room, yet I would hardly enter that as evidence of a nationwide bee surplus.


----------



## WLC

Jim:

At what %age overwinter colony loss rate would you estimate that your own operation wouldn't be profitable?

I'm trying to see how far away the hypothetical collapse of U.S. beekeeping might be.


----------



## Riskybizz

Jim

Remind me next spring to assemble a couple thousand frames of rite cell and pay you a visit..


----------



## gmcharlie

another factor to figure in here, that 2.5 million number is not right... I am thinking there are a lot of hives (not counting wild) they know nothing about... why? because for the last 4 years over 750K packages have been sold... (yes I track the numbers) with 30% die off, and the fact only about 1/2 are replaced with packages, (the other half done with splits and nucs) that puts the real number closer to 4.5 million hives.


----------



## camero7

I know of several beekeepers who did not go to almonds this year from the east coast for various reasons, so the lack of hives is not really from a shortage of bees. Several had gone before.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Jim:
> 
> At what %age overwinter colony loss rate would you estimate that your own operation wouldn't be profitable?
> 
> I'm trying to see how far away the hypothetical collapse of U.S. beekeeping might be.


A simple question with a complicated answer. Winter loss is never a very high number in our operation, probably in the neighborhood of 10%. Summer and fall losses due to failed queens or whatever run another 10%. The key to answering your question is what are the condition of the survivors. If I lost half of my hives from spring to spring but the other 1/2 averaged enough bees and brood to split in half I would do just fine, if the survivors were a bunch of dinks then it might be difficult to regain our numbers. Of course if our hives suffered 50% losses then there would be fewer almond bees to ship.
My guess is we will continue to see cyclical problems with supplying the numbers needed for a growing almond industry depending on the season but to suggest that some sort of apocalyptic bee event is on the horizon is just not something I expect. I think the law of supply and demand will take care of the need for pollinators much like we have seen with the worldwide demand for energy. Remember the 1970's and the claims that the world would run out of petroleum by the late 80's. Turns out it wasnt that simple. The price goes up and innovative people figure a way to supply the demand albeit at a higher price and consumers figure a way to reduce their consumption to save money. If needed, the price will go up and the bees will appear. Unfortunately I would expect self pollinating almonds to also become part of the solution and who could blame the growers.


----------



## Dave Burrup

gmcharlie said:


> another factor to figure in here, that 2.5 million number is not right... I am thinking there are a lot of hives (not counting wild) they know nothing about... why? because for the last 4 years over 750K packages have been sold... (yes I track the numbers) with 30% die off, and the fact only about 1/2 are replaced with packages, (the other half done with splits and nucs) that puts the real number closer to 4.5 million hives.


Charlie I think your estimate might be a lot closer to reality. Of the beekeepers in our group I think I am the only one that registers their hives. When I look at the state generated list most of the people I know with bees are not on it. That includes some commercial operations. The list is supposed to be all of the beekeepers in the state.
Dave


----------



## Daniel Y

gmcharlie said:


> another factor to figure in here, that 2.5 million number is not right... I am thinking there are a lot of hives (not counting wild) they know nothing about... why? because for the last 4 years over 750K packages have been sold... (yes I track the numbers) with 30% die off, and the fact only about 1/2 are replaced with packages, (the other half done with splits and nucs) that puts the real number closer to 4.5 million hives.


The chart is in the article linked to. You can look at it for yourself. 
I agree the real numbers would be higher. most likely far higher. that simply means the number of hive losses are far higher as well. But I was not commenting on the real numbers I didn't see any chart indicating those.


----------



## gmcharlie

Same here, there are 7 beeks in my county that I KNOW of, I am the only one registered... typical.. add to that the fact not every state has registry or inspections. I also refuse to report Honey production to the USDA..... and I am not alone........ Most people refuse to..

Danialy you could claim losses higher, but you would be wrong. the ratio is the same. and the replacement package numbers tell the story better.....
besides your commenting on the 1/3 die off, not the 2/3 survival...
What about Doves? 2/3 die every year? or elk?? 12% of them drop dead every year..... we want to get excited about our losess.. Make people feel sorry for us. But bee losses are normal... yea there higher than the were in the 70's.. but we lost hives back then also...


----------



## Daniel Y

30% of 2.5 million is 750,000. 30% of 5 million is 1,500,000. 1,50,000 is more than 750,000. Do I really need to explain this stuff. I did not mention a ratio I mentioned a quantity. So once again attempt to confuse the issue. It only confirms my claim that you are in desperation to call travesty, no problem.


----------



## gmcharlie

still focused on the lost, and not the suvivors....... Cant save you. 30% loss at any ratio.. isn't great, but with swarms issued every year at 100% or better (many make multiple splits) its not a big issue. would love it to be better.. but then again the honey price would drop...


----------



## Daniel Y

Okay Charlie, I am typing real slow just so you can keep up. Um yeah, looses are what we are discussing. 

If losses are not a problem why does anyone have to do anything at all about them?


----------



## gmcharlie

type as slow or fast as you like.... doesn't change the facts. Losses are normal.. and the bigger the numbers the more SURVIVORS there are also.......


----------



## rhaldridge

As a complete non-expert, I probably shouldn't even comment, but I do have a question.

Don't these high losses have a pretty bad effect on the bottom line? I'm not talking about replacement costs here. If a colony survives and is split to make up for losses, will that colony produce as much honey as one that overwinters as a big strong colony and broods up early? If you have 50% losses, as some migratory operations have reported, doesn't that mean that all the surviving colonies in the operation will need to be successfully split to make up the same numbers?


----------



## Daniel Y

You would not only have the loss of the colonies along with the cost effort and resources it took to make them. you then have to repeat that just to break even. So if you loose 30 out of every 100 colonies it is actually 60 colonies you must produce and recognize no additional benefit.

If you reproduce those 30 colonies by splitting an additional 30 colonies out of the 100 then you actually have 30 colonies lost that otherwise would have been fully productive colonies. And additional 30 colonies that are weakened. you don't actually produce anything more than 30 queens. the bees otherwise would have already existed. You also have 30 replacement colonies that are not really a replacement because they will not be strong ready to produce colonies.

In all you go from 100 fully productive colonies. to
30 weakened reduced production colonies. 
30 new unproductive colonies
and 40 fully productive colonies.

You can use methods that reduce the impact to fully productive colonies to get new queens started. but you still loose the entire production of 60 colonies that you in fact went to the entire cost of producing.

Another way to think about it. every queen you loose costs you 1500 to 2000 worker bees per day. And you never recover that. SO the entire idea that yo make up the losses is no even true.


----------



## gmcharlie

rhaldridge said:


> As a complete non-expert, I probably shouldn't even comment, but I do have a question.
> 
> Don't these high losses have a pretty bad effect on the bottom line? I'm not talking about replacement costs here. If a colony survives and is split to make up for losses, will that colony produce as much honey as one that overwinters as a big strong colony and broods up early? If you have 50% losses, as some migratory operations have reported, doesn't that mean that all the surviving colonies in the operation will need to be successfully split to make up the same numbers?


Excellent question, difficult to quantify. Differences between losses, dinks, good and poor beekeeping. what many would like to do is blame something else for poor beekeeping. they have weak and dying hives. but even the good ones are questionable.
If you were to ask great beekepers like Dan there, he HAS to split every year becase he is such a great beek, his hive would all swarm.......

Yes lossses do and can hit the bottom line..... depending on your goals and your survivors. Belive it or not not many beeks want 3 deep hives 8 feet tall. so many are already doing splits. Some Like Jim Lyon here, have figured out how to make up nucs that consume less food to replace his losses early. not sure but I would think he would say its close to a wash, nucs use less food....
Others don't mind loseing hives, and actualy dump or split those dinks that don't normaly survive long before winter. Some beeks Like solomon, are takeing the losses and trying to improve the genetics to restiant bees. losses to them are good.
Others are going the extra mile to ensure the bees are healthy going into winter.
Many of those beeks are saveing money and time by not feeding, or medicating those bees going into winter. they fail to mention that.

Bottom line if you hit 50% loss and hadn't planed on that your going to be losing money, but many are in fact planning. usaly by just being lazy and not doing the work.


----------



## jim lyon

This may sound odd to some but having too few losses and hives that are too strong too early can become a problem. The simple solution would be to just sell your surplus bees but in the real world I have not found it to be that easy for a number of reasons. We have a finite number of lids, pallets and comb to use, if that gets used up (some years it does, some years it dosent) the first option is to find a customer that we know to have good clean comb or foundation in trade and one willing to take enough to make it worth our time and then to insure we have enough cells in our builders to cover the order and all this has to happen on pretty short notice as there is enough variability in bee quality from yard to yard to make it difficult to anticipate what the day will bring. Option two is to shake out a lot of excess bees into packages but we aren't equipped for that nor would we have the mated queens available to go with them. Last year we went with option 3 which was simply to keep making nucs larger and larger....and larger. It was kind of funny as we split bees, if someone found a dead hive he wouldn't let anyone else know about his "find" you would just shut up and enjoy the "windfall" of empty comb. Plan 3 worked great....at least initially. The matings ran 85%+, the build up flow was just right. But when it came time for the little tap dance of moving 7 semi loads of rapidly growing singles up north and into muddy inaccessible locations and a much delayed summer flow in the Dakotas, thats when the problems began. They quickly outgrew their boxes yet because of the lack of a flow, they needed fed. Those that got their second story deeps on in a timely fashion grew uninterrupted, those that didn't had far more swarming issues than we have ever dealt with before in newly mated queens. In short what happened to us was the blessing of too many bees eventually turned into the curse of too much swarming. We lost probably around 10% of our hives that originally had confirmed newly mated queens in all likelihood because they outgrew their boxes and virgins were trying to get mated during the transition. Losses? We were short on them last year, at least until July rolled around.


----------



## rhaldridge

Jim, what an interesting and instructive story.

You're in a complicated business.


----------

