>> I don't think we have a baseline to compare to.  There are simply
>> too many variables at work that it is a fool's game trying to make
>> a comparison.

> Perhaps you missed my point.

I think that both make good points, but different points. One says that
there is sufficient noise and definition creep that any degree of
precision is impossible.  The other says, no matter, some trend should
be discernible.

> I'm curious as to the innate potential of healthy colonies to survive
> the winter--prior to varroa and the other factors that you mentioned.
> ...the old 5-10% expected winter loss rate appears to be valid...

Well, that seems to correspond pretty closely to queen failure rate.
Since we are discussing a wide range of climates from where winter is
six months of bee confinement to where a week or so without flight is
unusual, the definition, duration and severity of 'winter' is pretty
variable.

Moreover reports tend to emphasize one or two exceptional years or a few
individuals and those events, as hard as it is to believe, could be
simply due to chance.  Moreover, stats tend to be highly influenced by
how they are gathered and why.

The same beekeeper who brags of 5% loss at a meeting may claim 35% loss
if there is a chance of indemnity payments.

Is he lying?  No, not at all. He can prove either case honestly, simply
by how he chooses or is told to chose dates, base counts (ignore nucs or
not), whether he includes losses due to fall culling or not, and the
definition of a surviving colony.

> But the baseline appears today to remain the same.  Many beekeepers
> who practice excellent husbandry still report keeping winter loss
> rates down in the single digits.

I wonder about consistency of results.  It is not unusual to have a run
of good winters, followed by a wreck.  Being optimists, beekeepers tend
to discount or not mention the wrecks -- unless there is some payment
being offered, in which case the successes are downplayed.

> So the question to me is *exactly* which of those variables that you
> mentioned, as well as others (such as the introduction of Nosema
> ceranae or the neonicotinoids) are involved in today's higher winter
> loss rates.

Since the natural background loss rate seems to me to be dependant on
the queen performance and survival, and some unusual and unexplained
queen issues have been coming up in recent years,I wonder how much of
the 'winter' loss is due to poor queens.

Just as a chemical or disease that weakens hives by only 10% will tip
the scales towards increased loss, so will queens that under-perform by
a similar amount.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html