We aren’t losing all of our honeybees (2020) | Hacker News Reader

We aren’t losing all of our honeybees (2020)

geneticliteracyproject.org

23 pointsTheIronYuppie23 comments

Going with this, here in New Zealand we have disease associated with the overcrowding from to the number of colonies. We have too many honey bees.

As the number of colonies has started to fall in recent years, yield per hive has started to go up.

Overcrowding leads to more mites, more AFB and less honey. It’s also a right PITA trying to get stuff done late season, as bees descend and cause chaos at the whiff of sugar/honey.

I’m part of the problem with my small apiary in the back yard.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/479084/number-of-beehive...

I'm very unfamiliar with this, so apologies for being vague, and for my failure to use the correct terminology: I remember reading (or someone telling me) that the design of beehives was partially to blame for the issues with mites - that the classic 'box' beehive didn't allow waste products (dead mites?) to fall out. Re-designing the hives so that they were suspended and had a grill at the bottom apparently improved the problem considerably. Do you have any knowledge in this area? If so, I'd appreciate hearing your take on it.

Yes and no. There is some truth that certain aspects of modern beekeeping practices affect mites, for example we actually use foundation that encourages bees to produce cells (and therefore bees) a little larger than they would in nature, this extra space around the brood leaves more room for a mite to invade the cell. Similarly there is some evidence screened bottom boards like you describe can help by letting mites that fall off bees fall out of the hive. This isn't a more natural hive design however. In nature bees generally nest in holes in tree trunks, which definitely don't have open bottoms.

There is no magic hive design that solves the mite problem. The big issue is that our bees (in the USA) are from Europe, while varroa is from Asia, meaning our bees have never evolved defenses against them. This is why mites have essentially wiped out feral beehives.

The best hope for long term control is breeding programs breeding for bees that have behaviors that keep mites under control. In the meantime there are a number of things beekeepers can do to help the situation, but at this time they're aren't any known practices that will eliminate the need for treatment.

A variety of evidence exists on both sides of the debate on the need for treatment. Here is a book on the treatment free side: https://www.amazon.com/Treatment-Free-Beekeeping-David-Heaf/...

> for example we actually use foundation that encourages bees to produce cells (and therefore bees) a little larger than they would in nature

I use standard foundation and find it discourages bees from making drones cells. Mites love drones as they incubate longer and so the mites can breed better in the cells.

If I don’t put foundation in, they make drone cells. If you cut these out and throw them away, you destroy a lot of mites.

I’m a bit squeamish and hate doing this but do cut out some drone cells, as they get utterly infested.

You can buy drone foundation for this purpose. A frame of drone foundation discourages the bees from making drone cells elsewhere and you can pull the whole frame, pop it in the freezer overnight and then return it to the hive. The girls will remove the now dead brood and start again. This can also be part of your varroa strategy.

What you are referring to is a "screened bottom board" in langstroth (modern box) hive beekeeping terminology. Mites fall out of it when bees groom (if kept clean) and cannot return as they can only climb a certain distance (6" is what is generally held as being this distance). However, modern hives have other issues which may be more or less prevalent in different locations and some have argued they were primarily designed for honey production, not honeybee health. In my location, which gets quite cold in winter, the thin walls of langstroth hives have undesirable properties - being too thin to provide insulation, they get cold and then transpiration from the bees condenses as moisture on the inside of the hive, leading to mold. Other people see other problems - no hive design is perfect in all locations - many different location specific designs existed in antiquity, from the clay tubes of the Egyptians to the skeps of the English beekeeping and everything in between. I do note that in the wild, honeybees select a wide range of places in which to live, but seem (to many) to prefer hollow trees. Organization like boomtree bees and gaiabees encourage this preference by providing log type hives and report good results as well as evolved resistance to the varroa destructor, the parasitic mite to which you refer.

> Re-designing the hives so that they were suspended and had a grill at the bottom apparently improved the problem considerably. Do you have any knowledge in this area?

I have semi open bottoms. Fully open and nice/rats/hedgehogs and snails get in. Wasps too. I use these ones. https://www.ecrotek.com.au/products/hive-doctor-smart-bottom...

A recent article and discussion:

There are too many honeybees

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37203571

ask bee-keepers, not quants?

No, evaluate the evidence, not the people presenting it.

GLP is a Monsanto-fronted publication [0], so there is a significant bias and I'd take anything they say (i.e. a company that really would like you to buy crop treatments) with a pinch of salt.

[0] https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/jon-entine-genetic-literacy-pr...

Paraphrasing: "ok, but I am going to evaluate the person presenting it."

Since its so easy to misrepresent data, it'd be irresponsible not to consider the presenter at all, especially one with a reputation such as Monsanto.

All those ads/studies saying cigarettes were safe, also had evidence

Edit: wont let me reply to you, but evidence can be cherry picked by the presenter to make it lean their way. Again, its irresponsible to not consider who is providing you that evidence. That said, I haven't seen you cite anything

You still haven't said anything about the actual evidence.

The reason there was no reply button is just that not enough time had elapsed.

Clever of you to try to turn it around, but sorry, no dice: the article you're dismissing IS the evidence. What do you have?

you bring a compelling argument, however, has "monsanto is pushing it, so it's probably warped" ever led us wrong?

I expect they've sponsored a lot of research. So you've read it all?

Honeybees aren't declining because they're managed. Other bees are. The evidence is that honeybees are doing okay- nothing about other bees. You should still ask yourself "is this a propaganda shop", because facts are only impartial devoid of context.

"context" : another word for ad hominem argument

you did at least respond to some arguments, so I'll give you that.

I don't think they're bad people. I think the "center for promoting an agenda" type organizations have an incentive to promote their agendas.

So no environmental or climate group's "research" is trustworthy either?

What are their incentives? I'd be weary of an environmental group that was focused on downplaying the byproducts of solar manufacturing. So, yes, their research would bias towards saying that climate change is a threat. Maybe they even stand to make money from it. It really depends on the group. I'd be more likely to trust an ag extension than a first party manufacturer on issues of pesticides.

Edit: I'd apply the same thinking to say someone being paid to review hardware by a company vs a reviewer not being paid to.

Incentives for a nonprofit are almost entirely about getting donations and grants. Without those they're out of business. So for the aforementioned groups, sending out exaggerated warnings about disaster are a constant temptation.

If they sponsor or perform research, what are the chances it'll fail to support their public positions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com