> The Guardian published this article based on one beekeeper who obviously built his case on his own failed management.

> The article is...short on facts and long on innuendo.

> ...Arp is complaining about his colonies collapsing in October, and specifically due to lack of varroa management. And then the article somehow makes a quantum leap to blame Arp's troubles on almond pollination (the previous year???)

> The Almond Growers in California financed a research project here to get some idea of the synergistic effect of some product commonly applied to almond and beekeeper applied products for varroa...You might find his results interesting and informative. I think after the fact the Almond Growers association did suggest some recommendation to grower to at least partially address the problem.

Man, don't you guys do stuff on weekends? ;o) My condolences, Aaron. Tough job.

Let's take a step back. The article was posted as being "over the top," so you have to go in with that mindset.

The article was a human interest/save the bees (with a shoutout to native pollinators) piece, and quite clearly slanted to support this viewpoint.

The ostensible point of the article was to underline the stressors facing the pollinator population, and it used almond pollination as THE current, widespread illustration of the implications of monoculture/hive density/pesticide-fungicide-other-cide use.

To Randy's point, Arp wasn't complaining about almonds, he said his bees, "like working on the almonds, but it obviously exposes them to risks.” He also noted that he made $300k in almonds last year, giving back $100k in replacement bees and mite treatments. He sounds pretty rational, and one would presume has been applying those treatments in a way that has worked for him in the past. It seems to have failed him now. For him, this could represent a fourth major change in his 4-decade career, following cheap China honey, tracheal mites, and varroa. If Gene’s point is accurate, his may have some merit as well, no?

And while Pete’s point on innuendo is well taken, it’s a good circumstantial case they build. I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s a good idea to bring 2 million hives a year from all over the country into such close proximity, then return them to their points of origin (those hives affect my hives, no?). And the fact that it’s done onto a monoculture that requires such intensive pesticide use and occurs in a region that the WHO designated as having the worst air pollution in the country in 2016 (follow the link) just adds to the stress. The almond board’s “best practice” guidelines that encourage beekeepers to spend as little time in the valley as possible seems to support this as well.

So I wouldn’t just dismiss it as nonsense out of hand, because it isn’t. Nor is it incontrovertible fact, because it isn’t that either. It’s simply an entertaining piece meant to grab eyeballs, which it has accomplished based on our discussion here. Whether it garners donations for the Guardian or limits California almond consumption is another matter. I still have my bag of sea-salt almonds at my desk.

S
Skillman, NJ

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