> "Every commercial beekeeper loses half their colonies every year"
> This was a statement made to me this year by a commercial
> beekeeper.

I always figured about 30% if no attempts are made to save hives in which
queens die or go bad during the season.  In summer, with brood chambers
way down there under supers, or in winter under snow -- or half a
continent away -- for a commercial beekeeper, intervening is often
not an option, so 30% is pretty normal.  Maybe where the queens
are laying all year, 50% is normal.

> Is it any different this year than others? I went to one
> of the  meetings that the initial writer of "Super-varroa in CT" went
> to. I heard what he heard but I've been hearing the same thing for
> years... In short, how much of this "super varroa" is rumor or
> exaggeration?

IMO, it's only Super Varroa if your Kryptonite isn't working.

If it is, and you haven't poisoned your hives by now with approved and
unapproved treatments, you probably won't notice anything unusual.

The problem, IMO, is that many beekeepers are not monitoring, and if they
are monitoring varroa, maybe they have forgotten about tracheal or other
problems.

Moreover, after years of putting a variety of chemicals and herbs, etc. into
hives, the hives are contaminated to the point where the bees are stressed,
even without a varroa load.

All treatments -- including formic and oxalic -- are hard on bees.  If bees
are already under stress from a build up of chemicals in the hive and from a
series of failed or partially successful attempts at treatment with Apistan,
Checkmite+, plus other things from the environment, they will be much more
vulnerable to weather, viruses, new treatments, etc., and many hives may
well just die out, even if the varroa is reduced to what *should * be a safe
threshold.

We must realise, too, that admitting that one's hives are poisoned and one's
bees died from a lot of things  adding up -- including the very measures
meant to save them, is not easy to do.  It is much easier to keep looking
for a villain, then, when viruses or diseases that seldom proved fatal to
any great extent before are found, to blame them.

When going back to the bank for more $$$, or having to tell your friends --
or your wife -- why your bees are dead and you are broke, which would you
find easier?

1.) Say that your hives died because you poisoned them and your hives are
now worthless,
           OR
2.) Say that some new, mysterious virus took you down in spite of your
heroic efforts?

As long as I have been a beekeeper, there have periodically been reports of
widespread and somewhat unexplained bee losses.  And, all that time, some
beekeepers lost their bees over and over, and other beekeepers seldom
suffered serious losses.

Super Varroa?  I doubt it.

allen
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::