>
> >  parroting of the myth that the honey bee population is in decline
>

I apologize for being unclear, as some may not have understood the above
sentence.

By "honey bee population," I was referring to the total number of colonies
of the species *Apis mellifera*, both wild and managed.  This population is
clearly increasing in most areas.

Had the scientists instead said that beekeeping is more difficult these
days, or that colony morbidity and mortality rates are often elevated
compared to historical norms, then they would have been factually correct.

But I do question the entire percent loss issue, a subject that Pete Borst
has posted a great deal of data on.  The "norm" for colony loss varies
greatly, making the term "norm" nearly meaningless.

Charlie Linder recently posted about his disastrous season due to rain
during bloom.  His colonies, unless given extra husbandry, would likely
suffer elevated losses.  Ditto after cold winters or drought years.

In nature, under perfect conditions, a *minimum* of 50% of colonies in a
stable population will perish each year.  Not all colonies perform well.
Nature eliminates the poorly performing--this is called "natural
selection."

As beekeepers, there is no reason to attempt to keep every
poorly-performing colony alive (unless your joy is to be a Florence
Nightengale to bees).  In fact, you would be working against natural
selection to do so.  Better beekeepers have always culled their poorer
colonies.

For example, I've run bees to almonds for around 35 years.  I was recently
speaking with another long-term almond pollinator.  Our rules of thumb back
in the good old pre-varroa days was that we could plan on taking about
2/3rds of our July colony count to almonds the next February.  For those
weak in mathematical skills, that works out to a 33% "loss."

Now that "loss" did not mean that those colonies died.  Rather, we culled
out the poorly performing colonies so as to only winter our best, following
the adage "to take your winter losses in the fall."

When I start a yard of bees with identical nucs with sister queens, the
performances of the colonies will follow a bell-shaped "normal" curve.  I
would not make a profit from the lower third, so why waste my time and
money?  More efficient for me to only run well-performing colonies.  So I
turn the poor performers into honey supers.  Hence, "losses."

But with the advent of $150 almond pollination prices, many beekeepers
started counting on every danged colony surviving.  Ain't gonna
happen--never did before; unlikely that it ever will.

However, with good husbandry, many large commercial beekeepers that I know
enjoy overwinter loss rates in the low single digits.  But this husbandry
is now more costly than it used to be.  However, we now also get paid more
to practice it--so it is an economic wash.  A number of large operators
tell me that beekeeping is now more profitable than at any time in
memory. *Provided
that they manage varroa.*

At the risk of getting lectured at by others,  I'll bring up the term
"threshold" for mite treatment again.  If one manages mites by keeping them
below a low threshold number (perhaps a 1-2% infestation rate of adult
bees) all season long, then colony productivity and survival is not much
different than in the "good old days."

The buzz among successful commercial beekeepers is that there are others
who "always have problems," and "just aren't willing to change their ways."
 And yes, for them, the bee business today may not be profitable.

Personally, I used to sell off half my operation each spring after almonds,
and then rebuild to my original numbers.  But I have the benefit of the
long California season, and wasn't much interested in honey production.
Now that my sons wish to also sell honey, we are adjusting to run stronger
colonies for the main flow.  Our numbers now work like this:  We are
limited by logistics to only taking about 800 hives to almonds, so we aim
for a topout count in July of 1200 hives (we've got 1400 at the moment, and
are selling some off).  From those 1200, we take 800 to almonds.

When they return from almonds, we split them, and sell off about 500-600
nucs and packages.  And then make enough splits for us to build back to
1200 (or 1400 this season).  We feed very little sugar syrup, but do avoid
migrating to better pasture in summer by feeding pollen sub.

We manage varroa, but haven't needed to use a synthetic miticide since the
year 2000.  We don't make as much money as do some of my beekeeping
friends, who migrate (as I used to) to obtain a big honey crop, but we
enjoy our lifestyle.

From the above long-term, reality-based figures, one can see why I object
to the claim that there is a decline of bees, or that beekeeping cannot be
profitable.  Let me also be clear that I avoid (other than almonds)
agricultural areas, in which monocultures, poor nutrition, and pesticides
can be clear issues.  I have the greatest sympathy for beekeepers in such
areas, although, again, many successful migratory pollinators/honey
producers keep bees in such areas profitably.

I guess that my point is that perhaps beekeepers would do well to learn
best management practices, and perhaps copy successful beekeepers, rather
than continually whining about bees being "in decline."  And also realize
that even the best beekeepers, such as Charlie, can be brought to their
knees by poor weather.

-- 
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