> So can  we say Jeff Pettis is on shaky ground to claim annual colony
> losses in the  30% range are "economically unsustainable"?

> I came across data from the late 1980s, early 90s saying that annual
> colony losses had climbed as high as 39%.  So, apparently, our beekeepers  have
> managed to SUSTAIN themselves for at least  20 years with these   rates of
> loss.

An average of 30% shrinkage per year has been the rule in Alberta as 
long as I have kept bees.

Some years were higher, some maybe a bit less, but 30% has been typical 
total annual shrinkage before compensation by making splits and buying 
packages is considered.

Historically, adding about 10% package colonies has been the economic 
sweet spot if the packages were available at reasonable cost.  Of course 
that number is sensitive to honey, sugar, and bee prices.

Splits can substitute for packages if made a year in advance, but there 
is a cost to making increase above about 20% of colony numbers and also 
making excessive numbers of splits can result in "feast and famine" if 
losses are on the low or high side, and this is never predictable.

If a winter is mild, having a large number of splits in addition to 
surviving production hives forces a beekeeper to expand.  A bad winter 
like the last one causes a contraction and either a scramble for 
packages or splitting to where production suffers.

As a commercial outfit is usually scaled for a specific range of hive 
numbers, such swings are stressful.

30% annual losses are nothing new, and historically around the mean -- 
if not a bit low.

The factor which is less obvious is the condition and productivity of 
the surviving colonies.  All hives are suffering burdens which increase 
costs and reduce the returns.

             ***********************************************
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