>Surely it could be argued that the graph shows them having a further
effect on the decline in colony numbers, rather than laying it all at the
door of varroa?
>Seems reasonable!  Randy?

Of course seems reasonable.  The whole reason that I went through the work
of processing all the USDA data was that I expected honey yields to drop
off with the adoption of Roundup Ready crops, due to the new practice of
"clean farming."  To my great surprise, they didn't!

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out what the actual data suggest,
and spoke to a number of longtime beekeepers from the area for more
beekeeper back story.

Re the drop in hive numbers, the most reasonable explanation is that
beekeeping became less profitable.  Honey price supports ended, and there
was less good forage area.  Beekeepers told me that profitability depended
upon being near untilled woodlands.  It appears that the combination of the
added expense of dealing with varroa, coupled with loss of good forage land
is the likely cause of reduced colony numbers.

A good example of the importance of profitability is that given enough
financial incentive, beekeepers can still come up with a million and a half
hives to pollinate California almonds (well, perhaps they won't this year,
due to drought and lack of varroa treatment).

If you look at the graph, you'll see that on average, prior to varroa, GM
crops, or neonics, average colony numbers were less than 40,000.  Today
there are better than 25,000, so there has only been about a 35% reduction
in colony numbers in the heart of the Corn Belt, and that level has held
steady since 2006, despite the introduction of neonic seed treatments.

The thing about the graph that I find of most interest is how honey yield
has not changed over the years.  Honey yields actually went up for a few
years after the introduction of seed treatments (although I'm certainly not
suggesting that was the cause).  Sure, fewer hives, but today's hives are
still put into apiaries that must forage over the same amount of square
miles.  Beekeepers with stationary apiaries almost universally told me that
their bees do great these days.

It's largely the migratory beekeepers who are complaining.  Perhaps it is
because they don't get the choicest sites.

One might think that it was the Bt crops or seed treatments, but then how
do you explain the thriving colonies of stationary beekeepers in the same
areas, foraging on the same crops?  This is the most intriguing question to
me.

The data suggest to me that the reason(s) are something other than Bt or
neonics.  Both of those suspects are attractive, but it's hard to find
supportive evidence.

>bringing healthy hives into areas of crops using chemical company products
does not let you remove healthy bees in most cases.

The statement that taking bees to crops upon which chemicals are used will
result in death is awfully simplistic.  There are very few crops upon which
no chemicals are used.

However, I agree with Bob that many tell me that some areas are now "death
holes" for bees--take them in alive, and they die by next spring.  I've
seen data that support.  Some crops are death to bees, and beekeepers need
to file incident reports to bring this to the EPA's attention (if no
incident report, then it didn't happen).

 >Many say even charging double for pollination its not worth losing the
bees health.

That's a very simple calculation to make.  Many beekeepers have done the
math, and won't go to certain crops because of poor colony health due to
lack of nutritious pollen (citrus, cranberries, blueberries, vine crops),
or mud (prunes), or excessive pesticides (apples, seed crops).  Those that
do charge enough to make it worth their while.  It's simple business math.

>We can split hairs over fine points but the overall opinion is above.

In many cases pesticides are clearly an issue.  However, in California more
than 173 million pounds of pesticides were applied in 2010, yet pesticide
problems are rarely spoken of at state meetings or for research funding.
 And those of us who are in pesticide and GM-free areas still have plenty
of problems with our bees.  I have no interest in splitting hairs--I'm
trying to figure out the reasons for poor colony health in areas where
pesticides and GM crops can't be blamed.  Those reasons are likely also
reasons in the other areas.

--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm